Good point Rand made about the ISS ‘crisis’ interfering with the Dragon test flight later this year. I’ve wondered about the docking problem too. Maybe this situation requires re-dividing the Dragon test flights into #2 and #3 again, since the original #2 test flight would not dock with ISS.
I like Rand’s proposal of sending up a hasty manned Dragon capsule to substitute for the Soyuz manned flight. So what if Dragon doesn’t have a launch escape system yet?
Since tens of billions invested in ISS are at stake, ask for volunteers to take the trip on Dragon and give each of them a Federal life insurance policy for the mission with a 15 million payout. Isn’t that fair?
So what prevents Dragon from being fitted with APAS?
If you’re referring specifically to the next Dragon, time (the next Dragon has already been fitted with CBM) and the fact that Russia is the only source of APAS mechanisms (which is part of the reason NASA wants to switch to LIDS).
So what does a Dragon actually need for life support? CO2 scrubbing, O2 tanks and some neato chairs. Heat management may be more of an issue but I would assume they already have that covered (was the cheese in danger?) Whatever doesn’t need to be the permanents high efficiency recycling system they eventually develop.
I’m with Brad, saddle that Dragon.
Elon should buy some APAS and keep them in stock. Just in case.
@Dick Eagleson,
I don’t know why my basic math skills have evaporated today. 1 bill weighs a gram, and it’s $1 million in $100’s that is 22 lbs, which was the reference that stayed stuck in my head.
Anyway, since SpaceX has a goal of using the Dragon for manned ISS flights, they surely have the required docking interface already laid out as CAD drawings, if nothing else.
Still, the simplest approach is to pull a different production run gas generator assembly off the shelf and launch another Progress.
So is this an example where IP could kill people?
Creating this bogus right is right up there with the rest of Obama’s demagoguery. Our founders got this wrong.
>I like Rand’s proposal of sending up a hasty manned Dragon capsule to substitute for the Soyuz manned flight. So what if Dragon doesn’t have a launch escape system yet?
>Since tens of billions invested in ISS are at stake, ask for volunteers to take the trip on Dragon and give each of them a Federal life insurance policy for the mission with a 15 million payout. Isn’t that fair?
Ask for volunteers who are willing to shoulder the risk and take their chance at becoming space heroes. It would be the opportunity of a lifetime.
Starry Night has a much, much higher value-to-kilo ratio. Or, perhaps, Superman #1.
Best choice is still probably the notes that are “Social Security IOU’s” that are “in our accounts”. I hear there’s one marked “one trillion dollars”. If you believe they’ll be repaid.
If you believe they’ll be repaid.
Actually, it doesn’t matter that they will be repaid – they will repay it by taking more money from us.
Social security: a guy comes up and takes money out of your pocket. “Don’t worry,” he says, “I’m just taking this to provide for your retirement”. He then spends the money. When you complain, he says “Oh don’t worry, I’ll pay you back.” When you point out that he doesn’t have a job, he points out that he can always get more money from you, so that makes it OK.
Social security borrowings will be paid back by taxes. Because the government is inefficient, most people actually would be better off if we skipped the middle man and simply didn’t pay back the “borrowed” money.
15.3% of your income would buy some really nice annuities.
It does, Ken. The first 15% goes to the people who didn’t save for retirement, the next 25% goes to the governments, the next 15% goes to my retirement, the next 15% goes into houseing. The rest? “obscene profit!!!“
Any reason (aside from monies and total lack of imagination) the Air Force couldn’t fire up the X-37 filled to the brim w/ supplies and use the robotic arms on that and the ISS to hand off supplies? Sounds like a great test for the thing.
A couple of ways to understand just how bad Social Security is screwing us.
When you bought your first house, you probably had a payment about 25% of your salary. The 6.2% (the other 1.45% is medicare) of your salary is matched by your employer for a total of 12.4% of your gross salary in SS deductions. That deduction of 12.4% would be about half the amount of your house payment. If you paid 150% of your nominal house payment for ten years, you would pay off your thirty year morgage. For the next twenty years, you would have something over 150% of your house payment to invest, or about 7.5 years salary in the bank, plus whatever ROI it netted. By the time you retired a couple of decades later, you could live quite well.
Another way to think about it is if the SS deduction and employer match just from the first year you worked until you retired would be worth about 250 times the original deduction if invested at 12% for 47 years, which would be about 30 times the salary earned in that year. Plus whatever you did for the other 46 years you contributed. Think back on your gross income your first year and multiply by thirty when you turn 65. It is a safe bet that it is considerably more than the social security check. And when you die, your heirs get what’s left, not the bums.
The day the Russians get their cold robotic hands on the US Air Force X-37 is, is the day the station gets resupplied?
Any reason (aside from monies and total lack of imagination) the Air Force couldn’t fire up the X-37 filled to the brim w/ supplies and use the robotic arms on that and the ISS to hand off supplies? Sounds like a great test for the thing.
The supplies would have to fit in an airlock, and besides, supplies are not the problem. The X-37 would have to ferry things that could allow the Soyuz to last longer. Still, it is creative thinking. It might be beneficial to figure out a way the X-37 could mate to ISS in the abandoned state and reboost the station.
Any reason (aside from monies and total lack of imagination) the Air Force couldn’t fire up the X-37 filled to the brim w/ supplies and use the robotic arms on that and the ISS to hand off supplies?
X-37 has no demonstrated rendezvous capability. Would be more expensive than a Progress or unmanned Soyuz anyway.
Hopefully the ISS will remained crewed so SpaceX make finish their contract and get paid.
But if not and they have to wait months, perhaps even a year for their test flight is will be good lesson on why traditional firms prefer cost plus contracts when dealing with NASA. If SpaceX had a cost plus contract the cost of the NASA generated delays in their test flight would just be added to the contract. As would the cost of the delays in their cargo flights. But as it is they only get paid when they deliver, and if the ISS is not ready for a delivery its SpaceX’s bad luck, not NASA’s.
You make good a point Thomas. OTOH, the lesson shouldn’t be cost plus. The lesson is keep a strong commercial base so one customer doesn’t dominate. SpaceX is in a much stronger bargaining position when they don’t let any customer get the upper hand.
The beauty of SpaceX is they have a founder with a vision that isn’t going to let anybody sidetrack them, but at the same time can take situational advantage when available.
Just thought, if this were a real crisis, wouldn’t they have the first three come back immediately or ASAP to extend supplies for the remaining three?
Just thought, if this were a real crisis, wouldn’t they have the first three come back immediately or ASAP to extend supplies for the remaining three?
They would if this were a supply crisis. It isn’t. Supplies are good through at least ATV-3 next spring. No, the crisis is that there is no means of launching new crewmembers on Soyuz before the current Soyuzes docked to ISS reach their expiration dates, and that happens well before supplies run low.
My point is one of cascading failures. They should bring 3 back now rather than waiting for any reason. Next they look at all possible extensions of a lifeboat date (I would bet on SpaceX.) I understand that supply will not be an issue before the second lifeboat expires. But they could get a situation where another lifeboat could be sent up to be on station but might require a gap where supplies do become an issue.
Keep in mind that the second lifeboat may expire, but in reality could still be used just at higher risk. However, it still lowers the risk of waiting for another lifeboat.
@Nemo, @Prez Cannady,
I was actually kidding about the ‘salvage’ option, hence the use of the smiley (although normally I don’t like using such things, it’s just that on comment threads, things can get a little heated without an explicit statement of “joke”).
Prez, you commented that “I don’t think you’ll find a lawyer you can make a reasonable case that an unmanned ISS is in peril.”
The ISS is run by an inter-governmental committee, this is my personal definition of “in peril”. Again, humour.
They could take over the ISS.. even with astronauts on-board, they’d be no match for blood thirsty pirates!!
Fortunately the last Shuttle mission took up extra supplies just in case COTS was delayed. Also both ESA and Japan have supply flights planned before Spring so supplies are not an issue even if COTS fails and Progress stay grounded.
The basic problem is simply the lack of a Soyuz lifeboat for the astronauts on board. Unfortunately NASA decided many years ago not to build a lifeboat but to depend on the Soyuz.
Options are to extend the approved life of the last lifeboat, find a way to replace it, allow the crew to stay on board with an lifeboat too old to use, or bring them back and leave it unmanned until Soyuz is fixed.
Getting Soyuz fixed quickly would eliminate the problem and hopefully now that they believe they know the cause of the failure they are doing it.
A secondary problem is keeping the ISS in orbit without the Progress or Shuttle. The ISS has its own engines, but I believe they are dependent on the Progress for their fuel supplies.
ESA ATV also has the option to boost the ISS and hopefully it will do so when it docks in February. Fortunately the ESA ATV, unlike COTS, has an automated docking system, so its not necessary for the crew to be aboard if its needed to do a boost maneuver next year. If unmanned perhaps the amount fuel needed for the maneuver could be increased. Hopefully this is an option the ATV folks are looking at.
So no, supplies, other then perhaps fuel for its engines, is not the issue thanks to Shuttle. Its the lifeboat that is the issue. And there is nothing New Space would be able to contribute even with a rain of money.
Its just NASA’s bad decisions made years ago on a lifeboat combined with the premature retirement of the Shuttle that would have delivered it that are coming home to roost.
As a side note, now that Shuttle is gone I wonder if the ISS Consortium will look at placing the ISS in a higher orbit, one which requires less boosting to maintain.
ESA ATV also has the option to boost the ISS and hopefully it will do so when it docks in February.
ATV can both reboost and refuel.
As a side note, now that Shuttle is gone I wonder if the ISS Consortium will look at placing the ISS in a higher orbit, one which requires less boosting to maintain.
That has already happened. ATV-2, 43P, and STS-135 boosted ISS from 350 km to 400 km over the last few months. Not much wiggle room to go higher since Soyuz has a 425 km altitude ceiling.
I am aware of the extra supplies and other supply options. Supply is not an issue, unless they have more failures. You would want to minimize the potential impact of any.
Options are to extend the approved life of the last lifeboat, find a way to replace it, allow the crew to stay on board with an lifeboat too old to use, or bring them back and leave it unmanned until Soyuz is fixed.
Yes, those would seem to be the options. The funny thing with options is more usually lurk in the shadows. Perhaps they should sign on a consultant from the Dakotas about what to do when your home has lost power and is cut off from town by a snowstorm for six months. We still have a hardy species of Americans… they just don’t need to shout and make a fuss but they are there. Our future in space may have a lot more from the flyover country represented. Things change. I’ve known two kinds of farmers and ranchers. Those that drive new trucks and are owned by the banks and those that don’t look like much but are worth millions. Americans are often (mis)underestimated. It’s the public hand wringing that makes us close down, but still pay for, a system with flaws. That the public and media are so misinformed is the biggest crisis.
Also when I mention Bigelow I don’t always mention a taxi or tug because I take that as a given. Lot’s of little guys means robust. One big international cooperative does not. Putting all your eggs in one basket and guarding that basket is a last ditch strategy. It’s time will soon pass and we are going to see economic expansion in space. Some will then wonder why we wasted all this time on stupidity.
It should be obvious to anyone paying attention that for the money they spent on I.S.S. they could have had a dozen in orbit actually doing stuff.
That’s an issue we need to address how to get money to those that produce at lowest cost. I don’t believe making government bigger works toward that end.
Give me $38b and watched what I’d do. Damn poverty sucks.
Ken,
Which is what puzzles me – why are New Space folks discussing ways to keep the ISS in orbit. The lost of ISS would be the best thing possible for New Space now. Not only would it break their increasing addiction on NASA (COTS/CCDev) for funding but it would also eliminate a government funded competitor to Bigelow.
I expect that if you splashed ISS now within five years you would see 3-4 thriving Bigelow stations with multiple commercial HSF providers, true commercial providers who could care less about Congressional pork or space policy. And perhaps one or two other commercial station providers drawn in by Bigelow’s success. Now that would be a major step forward to creating a space faring and space inhabiting civilization.
So why are New Space folks so lost in the Old Space mindset that space begins and ends with NASA? And that a government funded space station is a good thing?
The lost of ISS would be the best thing possible for New Space now.
Not everybody is so callous as to hope for others failures, particularly the literal throwing away of billions taxpayers dollars, on which to build their own success.
I expect that if you splashed ISS now within five years you would see 3-4 thriving Bigelow stations with multiple commercial HSF providers
That could happen even is you don’t splash ISS. Indeed, Bigelow is as close as he is because he did much of his R&D with ISS funding. Now other people, for better or worse, are using ISS. Why should we be hopeful about throwing away billions of dollars of taxpayer funded infrastructure? You don’t have to be a fan of NASA to hope they would be better stewards of such an investment. Hell, if they don’t want to take care of it, the better thing would not be to splash it but to privatize it.
why are New Space folks discussing ways to keep the ISS in orbit
Because that’s what rocket geeks do?
It’s in orbit and we paid a lot for it. Going forward, I’d like to see private companies getting contracts to service it to help establish those companies until enough private business exists they can do without. After that, I’d rather see them sell it to some private venture rather than splashing it. If the private venture can’t maintain it, they could sell it too someone else and so forth. Bigelow isn’t going to be competing with I.S.S. for anything really after enough launch sites are developed to service both.
Ken,
The cost of operating ISS annually is probably more than to build a Bigelow habitat, but NASA’s accounting is so mixed up its probably impossible to prove.
After WWII the military surplussed a lot of bombers. Some folks tried using B-17 for air cargo but quickly found out its was a bad idea. Same with ISS. No sane entrepreneur would want it, even if it was given away free.
Leland,
Ahh, the sunk cost fallacy.
The ISS was a make work project for the Shuttle since it was approved in the 1990’s and a long way from what Ronald Reagan called for. And is now a make work project to give NASA HSF something to do. I would view splashing it as a mercy killing that would allow the U.S. space industry to move forward, not stay stuck in the past. And no, that is not callous, its merely being rational. Its a roadblock to the future, not a stepping stone.
In the short term, the ISS is useful to commercial space because NASA is providing money to help build craft that can take on ISS support missions. Sure, it might be as useful as Queen Isabella funding nautical missions to patrol the edge of the Earth (where the water falls over the side), but the largely useless program helps fund new maritime construction. Once the new ships are launched and a more worthwhile goal is discovered, the edge-of-the-Earth patrols can be cancelled, freeing up funds for real missions.
“Edge-of-the-Earth Patrol” That has some real potential although perhaps not quite there with Jefferson Starship.
even if it was given away free
Depends on the operational costs which I guarantee would be a lot less than the governments. They’d need to add more modules for recreation, not just from Bigelow because although they should add one, other inflatable from other companies would probably cost less.
Ken,
Although its a bit difficult to ferret out, its appears the annual operating budget for ISS is on the order of a billion dollars, enough to lease 11 Bigelow stations…
[[[Prime Clients can lease a facility for $88 million per year or half a facility for $54 million a year. Month-to-month leasing is also available. All maintenance and supplies will be included, as well as astronaut and mission specialist training.]]]
George,
[[[Sure, it might be as useful as Queen Isabella funding nautical missions to patrol the edge of the Earth (where the water falls over the side), but the largely useless program helps fund new maritime construction.]]]
Ships were available Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) for the Admiral of the Ocean Seas, he didn’t need to design or build any…
the sunk cost fallacy.
That’s a good title for the paragraph that followed it. Privatizing ISS, as I mentioned earlier, would be far better than literally sinking the station, which in this thread, seems to Matula’s trolling position of the moment.
Yet, in another thread, Matula accuses Congress of arm chair quarterbacking NASA and blaming NASA as scapegoats for any problem with a NASA vehicle. Except, in the context of this discussion, the problem is with a Russian resupply vehicle. NASA’s ISS is functioning just fine, but if we really wanted to use financial terms (as Matula erroneously does), this is a cash flow problem and a rather minor one. For this, Matula is ready to scrap the ISS (I guess he’ll give a big FU to the International partners) and get NASA completely out of HSF.
So either Matula is completely incoherent in his beliefs, or this is just another example of him trolling.
So either Matula is completely incoherent in his beliefs, or this is just another example of him trolling.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
the annual operating budget for ISS is on the order of a billion dollars
Which is not the same as saying it has to be. ISS is a mass in orbit. That mass could be of use. That orbit could be made a better one. A company doesn’t have to maintain an army to maintain the ISS so could probably do it for a reasonable amount compared to the customer revenue. Put it up for auction and we’d find out.
We have come up with a business plan that Wall Street understands
Still true and eventually will be realized.
Real estate, combined in a travel package, is something any banker could understand. That will allow anyone to go into space at any rate of colonization once the transportation legs are in place. Well, plus ISRU.
I’m sure the Las Vegas Bunny Ranch could produce an ISS business plan that investors would understand.
Does that make it bad? I think we should research this bunny ranch thang. It is in the same area isn’t it?
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Absolutely right, thanks Edward for the correction.
Leland,
The problem with privatization, even assuming the other 15 members agree to it, is that the U.S. is still legally liable for the ISS under the OST, and for any damage it causes if like with Mir, privatization fails.
Ken,
You are a rational business investor. What would you prefer, a brand new state-of-the-art Bigelow station for $88 million a year, all operational costs included. And no obligations when the lease runs out.
Or a 20 year old collection of cost plus custom parts that costs governments a billion a year to operate and you being held responsible for by the U.S. as long as you have a single dollar, unless you find a bigger fool to buy it from you…
Even if you cuts costs 90% its still a bad deal.
How much does it cost to let ISS orbit the earth? Nothin’ Of course, if I do nothing atmospheric drag will eventually drop it out of the sky, so if I want to keep it I have the cost of boosting it. That’s about $20m annually. In which case I’m putting it into a higher orbit that doesn’t degrade so fast.
I wouldn’t pay $88m per year, instead I’d purchase and orbit a BA330 for $200m which is cheaper after three years even with ‘all operational costs.’
Then I would start buying and selling LOX at my station. Open to all. I’m pretty sure I could make a profit just doing that, but of course I’d be open to any other offers.
I’d even send the oxygen to you for the right price rather than only providing it at the station.
Bottom line, they have to sell it to me real cheap, but I could see some value from it.
Good point Rand made about the ISS ‘crisis’ interfering with the Dragon test flight later this year. I’ve wondered about the docking problem too. Maybe this situation requires re-dividing the Dragon test flights into #2 and #3 again, since the original #2 test flight would not dock with ISS.
I like Rand’s proposal of sending up a hasty manned Dragon capsule to substitute for the Soyuz manned flight. So what if Dragon doesn’t have a launch escape system yet?
Since tens of billions invested in ISS are at stake, ask for volunteers to take the trip on Dragon and give each of them a Federal life insurance policy for the mission with a 15 million payout. Isn’t that fair?
So what does a Dragon actually need for life support? CO2 scrubbing, O2 tanks and some neato chairs. Heat management may be more of an issue but I would assume they already have that covered (was the cheese in danger?) Whatever doesn’t need to be the permanents high efficiency recycling system they eventually develop.
I’m with Brad, saddle that Dragon.
Elon should buy some APAS and keep them in stock. Just in case.
@Dick Eagleson,
I don’t know why my basic math skills have evaporated today. 1 bill weighs a gram, and it’s $1 million in $100’s that is 22 lbs, which was the reference that stayed stuck in my head.
Anyway, since SpaceX has a goal of using the Dragon for manned ISS flights, they surely have the required docking interface already laid out as CAD drawings, if nothing else.
Still, the simplest approach is to pull a different production run gas generator assembly off the shelf and launch another Progress.
So is this an example where IP could kill people?
Creating this bogus right is right up there with the rest of Obama’s demagoguery. Our founders got this wrong.
>I like Rand’s proposal of sending up a hasty manned Dragon capsule to substitute for the Soyuz manned flight. So what if Dragon doesn’t have a launch escape system yet?
>Since tens of billions invested in ISS are at stake, ask for volunteers to take the trip on Dragon and give each of them a Federal life insurance policy for the mission with a 15 million payout. Isn’t that fair?
Ask for volunteers who are willing to shoulder the risk and take their chance at becoming space heroes. It would be the opportunity of a lifetime.
Starry Night has a much, much higher value-to-kilo ratio. Or, perhaps, Superman #1.
Best choice is still probably the notes that are “Social Security IOU’s” that are “in our accounts”. I hear there’s one marked “one trillion dollars”. If you believe they’ll be repaid.
If you believe they’ll be repaid.
Actually, it doesn’t matter that they will be repaid – they will repay it by taking more money from us.
Social security: a guy comes up and takes money out of your pocket. “Don’t worry,” he says, “I’m just taking this to provide for your retirement”. He then spends the money. When you complain, he says “Oh don’t worry, I’ll pay you back.” When you point out that he doesn’t have a job, he points out that he can always get more money from you, so that makes it OK.
Social security borrowings will be paid back by taxes. Because the government is inefficient, most people actually would be better off if we skipped the middle man and simply didn’t pay back the “borrowed” money.
15.3% of your income would buy some really nice annuities.
It does, Ken. The first 15% goes to the people who didn’t save for retirement, the next 25% goes to the governments, the next 15% goes to my retirement, the next 15% goes into houseing. The rest? “obscene profit!!!“
Any reason (aside from monies and total lack of imagination) the Air Force couldn’t fire up the X-37 filled to the brim w/ supplies and use the robotic arms on that and the ISS to hand off supplies? Sounds like a great test for the thing.
A couple of ways to understand just how bad Social Security is screwing us.
When you bought your first house, you probably had a payment about 25% of your salary. The 6.2% (the other 1.45% is medicare) of your salary is matched by your employer for a total of 12.4% of your gross salary in SS deductions. That deduction of 12.4% would be about half the amount of your house payment. If you paid 150% of your nominal house payment for ten years, you would pay off your thirty year morgage. For the next twenty years, you would have something over 150% of your house payment to invest, or about 7.5 years salary in the bank, plus whatever ROI it netted. By the time you retired a couple of decades later, you could live quite well.
Another way to think about it is if the SS deduction and employer match just from the first year you worked until you retired would be worth about 250 times the original deduction if invested at 12% for 47 years, which would be about 30 times the salary earned in that year. Plus whatever you did for the other 46 years you contributed. Think back on your gross income your first year and multiply by thirty when you turn 65. It is a safe bet that it is considerably more than the social security check. And when you die, your heirs get what’s left, not the bums.
The day the Russians get their cold robotic hands on the US Air Force X-37 is, is the day the station gets resupplied?
Any reason (aside from monies and total lack of imagination) the Air Force couldn’t fire up the X-37 filled to the brim w/ supplies and use the robotic arms on that and the ISS to hand off supplies? Sounds like a great test for the thing.
The supplies would have to fit in an airlock, and besides, supplies are not the problem. The X-37 would have to ferry things that could allow the Soyuz to last longer. Still, it is creative thinking. It might be beneficial to figure out a way the X-37 could mate to ISS in the abandoned state and reboost the station.
X-37 has no demonstrated rendezvous capability. Would be more expensive than a Progress or unmanned Soyuz anyway.
Hopefully the ISS will remained crewed so SpaceX make finish their contract and get paid.
But if not and they have to wait months, perhaps even a year for their test flight is will be good lesson on why traditional firms prefer cost plus contracts when dealing with NASA. If SpaceX had a cost plus contract the cost of the NASA generated delays in their test flight would just be added to the contract. As would the cost of the delays in their cargo flights. But as it is they only get paid when they deliver, and if the ISS is not ready for a delivery its SpaceX’s bad luck, not NASA’s.
You make good a point Thomas. OTOH, the lesson shouldn’t be cost plus. The lesson is keep a strong commercial base so one customer doesn’t dominate. SpaceX is in a much stronger bargaining position when they don’t let any customer get the upper hand.
The beauty of SpaceX is they have a founder with a vision that isn’t going to let anybody sidetrack them, but at the same time can take situational advantage when available.
Just thought, if this were a real crisis, wouldn’t they have the first three come back immediately or ASAP to extend supplies for the remaining three?
They would if this were a supply crisis. It isn’t. Supplies are good through at least ATV-3 next spring. No, the crisis is that there is no means of launching new crewmembers on Soyuz before the current Soyuzes docked to ISS reach their expiration dates, and that happens well before supplies run low.
My point is one of cascading failures. They should bring 3 back now rather than waiting for any reason. Next they look at all possible extensions of a lifeboat date (I would bet on SpaceX.) I understand that supply will not be an issue before the second lifeboat expires. But they could get a situation where another lifeboat could be sent up to be on station but might require a gap where supplies do become an issue.
Keep in mind that the second lifeboat may expire, but in reality could still be used just at higher risk. However, it still lowers the risk of waiting for another lifeboat.
@Nemo, @Prez Cannady,
I was actually kidding about the ‘salvage’ option, hence the use of the smiley (although normally I don’t like using such things, it’s just that on comment threads, things can get a little heated without an explicit statement of “joke”).
Prez, you commented that “I don’t think you’ll find a lawyer you can make a reasonable case that an unmanned ISS is in peril.”
The ISS is run by an inter-governmental committee, this is my personal definition of “in peril”. Again, humour.
They could take over the ISS.. even with astronauts on-board, they’d be no match for blood thirsty pirates!!
Not so fast Trent, those cosmonauts pack heat!
http://rt.com/news/sci-tech/launch-dock-and-three-smoking-barrels/
Ken,
Fortunately the last Shuttle mission took up extra supplies just in case COTS was delayed. Also both ESA and Japan have supply flights planned before Spring so supplies are not an issue even if COTS fails and Progress stay grounded.
The basic problem is simply the lack of a Soyuz lifeboat for the astronauts on board. Unfortunately NASA decided many years ago not to build a lifeboat but to depend on the Soyuz.
Options are to extend the approved life of the last lifeboat, find a way to replace it, allow the crew to stay on board with an lifeboat too old to use, or bring them back and leave it unmanned until Soyuz is fixed.
Getting Soyuz fixed quickly would eliminate the problem and hopefully now that they believe they know the cause of the failure they are doing it.
A secondary problem is keeping the ISS in orbit without the Progress or Shuttle. The ISS has its own engines, but I believe they are dependent on the Progress for their fuel supplies.
ESA ATV also has the option to boost the ISS and hopefully it will do so when it docks in February. Fortunately the ESA ATV, unlike COTS, has an automated docking system, so its not necessary for the crew to be aboard if its needed to do a boost maneuver next year. If unmanned perhaps the amount fuel needed for the maneuver could be increased. Hopefully this is an option the ATV folks are looking at.
So no, supplies, other then perhaps fuel for its engines, is not the issue thanks to Shuttle. Its the lifeboat that is the issue. And there is nothing New Space would be able to contribute even with a rain of money.
Its just NASA’s bad decisions made years ago on a lifeboat combined with the premature retirement of the Shuttle that would have delivered it that are coming home to roost.
As a side note, now that Shuttle is gone I wonder if the ISS Consortium will look at placing the ISS in a higher orbit, one which requires less boosting to maintain.
ESA ATV also has the option to boost the ISS and hopefully it will do so when it docks in February.
ATV can both reboost and refuel.
That has already happened. ATV-2, 43P, and STS-135 boosted ISS from 350 km to 400 km over the last few months. Not much wiggle room to go higher since Soyuz has a 425 km altitude ceiling.
I am aware of the extra supplies and other supply options. Supply is not an issue, unless they have more failures. You would want to minimize the potential impact of any.
Options are to extend the approved life of the last lifeboat, find a way to replace it, allow the crew to stay on board with an lifeboat too old to use, or bring them back and leave it unmanned until Soyuz is fixed.
Yes, those would seem to be the options. The funny thing with options is more usually lurk in the shadows. Perhaps they should sign on a consultant from the Dakotas about what to do when your home has lost power and is cut off from town by a snowstorm for six months. We still have a hardy species of Americans… they just don’t need to shout and make a fuss but they are there. Our future in space may have a lot more from the flyover country represented. Things change. I’ve known two kinds of farmers and ranchers. Those that drive new trucks and are owned by the banks and those that don’t look like much but are worth millions. Americans are often (mis)underestimated. It’s the public hand wringing that makes us close down, but still pay for, a system with flaws. That the public and media are so misinformed is the biggest crisis.
Also when I mention Bigelow I don’t always mention a taxi or tug because I take that as a given. Lot’s of little guys means robust. One big international cooperative does not. Putting all your eggs in one basket and guarding that basket is a last ditch strategy. It’s time will soon pass and we are going to see economic expansion in space. Some will then wonder why we wasted all this time on stupidity.
It should be obvious to anyone paying attention that for the money they spent on I.S.S. they could have had a dozen in orbit actually doing stuff.
That’s an issue we need to address how to get money to those that produce at lowest cost. I don’t believe making government bigger works toward that end.
Give me $38b and watched what I’d do. Damn poverty sucks.
Ken,
Which is what puzzles me – why are New Space folks discussing ways to keep the ISS in orbit. The lost of ISS would be the best thing possible for New Space now. Not only would it break their increasing addiction on NASA (COTS/CCDev) for funding but it would also eliminate a government funded competitor to Bigelow.
I expect that if you splashed ISS now within five years you would see 3-4 thriving Bigelow stations with multiple commercial HSF providers, true commercial providers who could care less about Congressional pork or space policy. And perhaps one or two other commercial station providers drawn in by Bigelow’s success. Now that would be a major step forward to creating a space faring and space inhabiting civilization.
So why are New Space folks so lost in the Old Space mindset that space begins and ends with NASA? And that a government funded space station is a good thing?
The lost of ISS would be the best thing possible for New Space now.
Not everybody is so callous as to hope for others failures, particularly the literal throwing away of billions taxpayers dollars, on which to build their own success.
I expect that if you splashed ISS now within five years you would see 3-4 thriving Bigelow stations with multiple commercial HSF providers
That could happen even is you don’t splash ISS. Indeed, Bigelow is as close as he is because he did much of his R&D with ISS funding. Now other people, for better or worse, are using ISS. Why should we be hopeful about throwing away billions of dollars of taxpayer funded infrastructure? You don’t have to be a fan of NASA to hope they would be better stewards of such an investment. Hell, if they don’t want to take care of it, the better thing would not be to splash it but to privatize it.
why are New Space folks discussing ways to keep the ISS in orbit
Because that’s what rocket geeks do?
It’s in orbit and we paid a lot for it. Going forward, I’d like to see private companies getting contracts to service it to help establish those companies until enough private business exists they can do without. After that, I’d rather see them sell it to some private venture rather than splashing it. If the private venture can’t maintain it, they could sell it too someone else and so forth. Bigelow isn’t going to be competing with I.S.S. for anything really after enough launch sites are developed to service both.
Ken,
The cost of operating ISS annually is probably more than to build a Bigelow habitat, but NASA’s accounting is so mixed up its probably impossible to prove.
After WWII the military surplussed a lot of bombers. Some folks tried using B-17 for air cargo but quickly found out its was a bad idea. Same with ISS. No sane entrepreneur would want it, even if it was given away free.
Leland,
Ahh, the sunk cost fallacy.
The ISS was a make work project for the Shuttle since it was approved in the 1990’s and a long way from what Ronald Reagan called for. And is now a make work project to give NASA HSF something to do. I would view splashing it as a mercy killing that would allow the U.S. space industry to move forward, not stay stuck in the past. And no, that is not callous, its merely being rational. Its a roadblock to the future, not a stepping stone.
In the short term, the ISS is useful to commercial space because NASA is providing money to help build craft that can take on ISS support missions. Sure, it might be as useful as Queen Isabella funding nautical missions to patrol the edge of the Earth (where the water falls over the side), but the largely useless program helps fund new maritime construction. Once the new ships are launched and a more worthwhile goal is discovered, the edge-of-the-Earth patrols can be cancelled, freeing up funds for real missions.
“Edge-of-the-Earth Patrol” That has some real potential although perhaps not quite there with Jefferson Starship.
even if it was given away free
Depends on the operational costs which I guarantee would be a lot less than the governments. They’d need to add more modules for recreation, not just from Bigelow because although they should add one, other inflatable from other companies would probably cost less.
Ken,
Although its a bit difficult to ferret out, its appears the annual operating budget for ISS is on the order of a billion dollars, enough to lease 11 Bigelow stations…
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/04/space_symposium/
[[[Prime Clients can lease a facility for $88 million per year or half a facility for $54 million a year. Month-to-month leasing is also available. All maintenance and supplies will be included, as well as astronaut and mission specialist training.]]]
George,
[[[Sure, it might be as useful as Queen Isabella funding nautical missions to patrol the edge of the Earth (where the water falls over the side), but the largely useless program helps fund new maritime construction.]]]
Ships were available Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) for the Admiral of the Ocean Seas, he didn’t need to design or build any…
the sunk cost fallacy.
That’s a good title for the paragraph that followed it. Privatizing ISS, as I mentioned earlier, would be far better than literally sinking the station, which in this thread, seems to Matula’s trolling position of the moment.
Yet, in another thread, Matula accuses Congress of arm chair quarterbacking NASA and blaming NASA as scapegoats for any problem with a NASA vehicle. Except, in the context of this discussion, the problem is with a Russian resupply vehicle. NASA’s ISS is functioning just fine, but if we really wanted to use financial terms (as Matula erroneously does), this is a cash flow problem and a rather minor one. For this, Matula is ready to scrap the ISS (I guess he’ll give a big FU to the International partners) and get NASA completely out of HSF.
So either Matula is completely incoherent in his beliefs, or this is just another example of him trolling.
So either Matula is completely incoherent in his beliefs, or this is just another example of him trolling.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
the annual operating budget for ISS is on the order of a billion dollars
Which is not the same as saying it has to be. ISS is a mass in orbit. That mass could be of use. That orbit could be made a better one. A company doesn’t have to maintain an army to maintain the ISS so could probably do it for a reasonable amount compared to the customer revenue. Put it up for auction and we’d find out.
We have come up with a business plan that Wall Street understands
Still true and eventually will be realized.
Real estate, combined in a travel package, is something any banker could understand. That will allow anyone to go into space at any rate of colonization once the transportation legs are in place. Well, plus ISRU.
I’m sure the Las Vegas Bunny Ranch could produce an ISS business plan that investors would understand.
Does that make it bad? I think we should research this bunny ranch thang. It is in the same area isn’t it?
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Absolutely right, thanks Edward for the correction.
Leland,
The problem with privatization, even assuming the other 15 members agree to it, is that the U.S. is still legally liable for the ISS under the OST, and for any damage it causes if like with Mir, privatization fails.
Ken,
You are a rational business investor. What would you prefer, a brand new state-of-the-art Bigelow station for $88 million a year, all operational costs included. And no obligations when the lease runs out.
Or a 20 year old collection of cost plus custom parts that costs governments a billion a year to operate and you being held responsible for by the U.S. as long as you have a single dollar, unless you find a bigger fool to buy it from you…
Even if you cuts costs 90% its still a bad deal.
How much does it cost to let ISS orbit the earth? Nothin’ Of course, if I do nothing atmospheric drag will eventually drop it out of the sky, so if I want to keep it I have the cost of boosting it. That’s about $20m annually. In which case I’m putting it into a higher orbit that doesn’t degrade so fast.
I wouldn’t pay $88m per year, instead I’d purchase and orbit a BA330 for $200m which is cheaper after three years even with ‘all operational costs.’
Then I would start buying and selling LOX at my station. Open to all. I’m pretty sure I could make a profit just doing that, but of course I’d be open to any other offers.
I’d even send the oxygen to you for the right price rather than only providing it at the station.
Bottom line, they have to sell it to me real cheap, but I could see some value from it.