This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

CASIS Finally Does Something Smart

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
April 12, 2012
Filed under , , ,

CASIS and NanoRacks Announce Expanded ISS Research Capabilities, Nanoracks
“The Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS), the non-profit organization managing the International Space Station U.S. National Laboratory, today announced a deal with NanoRacks, LLC, to reserve space on the first commercial platform available for researchers outside the ISS in the extreme environments of space.”
CASIS and NanoRacks Close Deal to Use Commercial Research Platform in the Extremes of Space, CASIS
“In June, CASIS will issue a formal solicitation to the research community and private enterprise for their proposals to use this one-of-a-kind platform for anything from earth observation to materials, and biological sciences.”
Commercial Platform Offers Exposure at Space Station< NASA “The contributions by NanoRacks and Astrium are the most recent example of NASA efforts to expand the station’s research capacity through innovative partnerships with commercial companies.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

22 responses to “CASIS Finally Does Something Smart”

  1. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    Great progress by CASIS.  

    The NanoRacks deal with CASIS must have been what took so long for CASIS to put together.  Since deals like NanoRacks take months, the deal credit surely must go to Dr. Jean Becker, this Dr. Jeff Manbur too.

    With NanoRacks as a strong CASIS partner the educational community can take on the leadership of the ISS.  STEM educators can fill the ISS and teach us how it can be used.  ISS isn’t there for capitalistic or production reasons, it is for education and teaching and outreach.  ISS is there so the U.S. can show and teach other nations how to use space as the U.S. has learned.     

    From NanoRacks descriptions of the science payloads that will be launched from Japan and Russia, foreign students will get to have many of their science payloads on the ISS.  This is good for international relations. Students in Israel, Vietnam, and other foreign countries will be able to learn and discover great science.  Students from these countries will be able to advance space technology in their nations and become new and strong leaders.  They will become the next leaders of the 21st century in space and will be able to see great economic gains for their nations developing new technologies for their people. China may be envious and try to do the same.

    The CASIS work with NanoRacks is a new beginning.  Expansion in to Kibo lab and more.  Great opportunities for other nations to finally benefit from the ISS and become leaders in 2030.  Not just the U.S.  Expect to see great international expansion by NanoRacks.  Expect to see NanoRacks funding CASIS with many millions to fill the ISS with educational science.   NanoRacks success must be CASIS and NASA favorite, but even more international favorite.

  2. Pete Harding says:
    0
    0

    This is great progress in the field of ISS research – kudos to both NanoRacks and CASIS.

    But the statement “CASIS Finally Does Something Smart” implies that they haven’t been smart up until now. I’ve said in previous discussions that I always thought CASIS would take a while to get going, but would eventually start to pay dividends.

    We all know CASIS is having some troubles, although we’re seeing the first dividends now with this announcement – but what could CASIS have done differently up until now? (Bearing in mind that hindsight is always brilliant.)

    If NASA had given you $15m to manage ISS research, what would YOU have done differently, Keith? This isn’t any kind of personal attack – I’d honestly genuinely like to know how you think CASIS could have done things better.

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      Pete, saying the ISS will pay dividends seems too capitalistic, when the ISS should be about education and social benefits.  What dividends have you seen and what dividends do you expect from the CASIS and NanoRacks efforts?

      • Pete Harding says:
        0
        0

        Good question – by “dividends” I mean many things – in this case commercial revenue from companies like NanoRacks, but in other cases, also things that are somewhat less tangible (i.e. can”t be measured on a viewgraph) – things such as engineering experience/knowledge, and like you say, education and social benefits.

        • Anonymous says:
          0
          0

          So the dividends are going to be NanoRacks paying CASIS because NanoRacks will be making money from their use of the ISS national laboratory facility.  CASIS can then profit from being the landlord manager of the commercial activity on the space station.  Is this what you’re saying?

          The educational and social benefits things seem to be what everyone looks for.  Using the space station mainly for education and some social enjoyments is the best use of the $100 billlion space station to you right?

          • Pete Harding says:
            0
            0

            In this case, the dividends are the money that NanoRacks will make from flying the experiments, and the money that the companies who own the experiments can make from the data from their experiments

            And it is CASIS that will pay NanoRacks to reserve experiment space, not the other way round. CASIS will not profit from anything, since it is a not-for-profit organisation.

            Educational and social benefits are just two of the many benefits of ISS – there isn’t any one benefit (or experiment) that alone justifies the cost of ISS.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      I have posted a lot of things. I am too busy to stop what I am doing just to write a personal response. Please stick to the topic in the future.

  3. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    8″x8″x8″ experiment boxes and an emphasis on students; I’m still optimistic that they can get it together and do some more extensive research experiments involving real money (in and out), but at least they seem to be getting it together now.

    It would be nice to have some details on the proposed “first commercial platform available,” it’s power capabilities, environmental controls (if any), integration to the ISS proper, maximum capacity of stacking, and most of all, method(s) of access.  It will also be interesting to see the planned vs. actual experiment turn-arounds (waiting time, integration time, cost rates, retrieve and down times) of the initial experiments.There’s also the question of other alternatives in addition to NanoRacks. Will there be any? How will they compare in performance and price?
    There’s also the question of other alternatives in addition to NanoRacks. Will there be any? How will they compare in performance and price?

    Also, let’s see if any of the players (NASA, CASIS, NanoRacks, or PIs) try to delay or take control over data release (an on-going problem).  He who controls the data flow controls the whole game.

    I sincerely hope that this is the start of something big, and years overdue.

    Steve

    • Pete Harding says:
      0
      0

      As for the interfaces of the platform, as far as I’ve seen, it will be able to attach to both the Japanese Exposed Facility (via the EEU interface), or remain attached to the Dextre SPDM for the duration of its stay outside (via the micro fixture square interface). It will have a Flight Releasable Grapple Fixture, but only so it can be manipulated by the Japanese Main Arm.

      The NanoRack modules/sensors will be installed onto the platform inside the ISS, and then the entire platform will be be taken outside/brought back inside via the Japanese airlock.

      As for stacking, here’s a picture (final design may vary):

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        Thanks a lot, Pete.

        That makes things clearer for me;  I couldn’t visualize how they were going to access the individual experiments while stacked.  The only real down side I can see is that adding to or removing from the stack is going to change the center of mass of the platform and therefore whole ISS.  I guess stacking the platform inside and then taking it outside will be a very slow and careful operation, but it’s a big step up from what we’ve got now.

        I wonder if they’ve given any thought to designing a platform that can accommodate double-wide and/or double-high modules (16″).

        Thanks,

        Steve

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      Your ideas on this sound right Steve “He who controls the data flows controls the whole game.”  If CASIS can get control of the data and the rights, they will be able to control everything and grow.  

      Education seems to be the most popular and easiest use of the ISS now.  Big firms don’t seem to understand ISS, best they all stay away or die off, why should a U.S. company make money using the ISS?  Too many greedy capitalists.  As Harding says there are less tangible things.  Science is too hard to measure and therefore should not be measured. It is bad to have economic expectations from science explorations, it dirtys the effort.  ISS should be more of a science commune for society betterment and social good.

      By educating 20 year old researchers a brighter group will be educated and they can do good society work in space in 10 or 20 years, 2020 and 2030.  NanoRack toys and small payloads will be rich seeds for the future.

  4. ellegood says:
    0
    0

    I’ve commented on other posts that I am now in discussions with CASIS to fly one or two research projects from Embry-Riddle (one seems suitable for NanoRacks). The group has conducted a preliminary review of the projects and their focus clearly includes the potential for commercialization. I’ve heard that this inclination toward commercialization is what differentiated CASIS from the other groups that proposed to manage the ISS National Lab.

    I think other National Labs give less priority to this commercialization aspect, so NASA took a bit of a risk by going in this direction. In my opinion, this is appropriate given the limited lifespan of the ISS. 

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      Edward, I don’t understand your commercialization views.  You said you want to fly Embry-Riddle payloads on the ISS by working with CASIS.  If your science leads to commercialization does that mean Embry-Riddle will make profits from its use of the ISS?   I thought Embry-Riddle was interested in education and outreach to students for learning and social good, not for commercial profit.  The ISS was paid for by tax payers.  Is Embry Riddle’s use of the ISS for commercialization and profit a fair use?

      • ellegood says:
        0
        0

        I’m not saying there’s a commercialization plan for either of our projects, or that CASIS requires one (maybe they will, I don’t know yet). They just are interested in whether our projects have the potential for commercialization. In fact, I believe our projects do have that potential, but that’s not the intent of the research. I have no idea whether the university will ultimately be a beneficiary of any commercialization… that’s not the motivation.

        NASA wants to see some payoff from ISS-based research. Commercialization (I mean the development/maturation of commercially viable technologies) is a good way–but not the only way–to achieve that.  I think that’s one of CASIS’s motivations.

        • Anonymous says:
          0
          0

          Interesting answers Edward.  What is “the intent of the research” then?  And your comment “NASA wants to see some payoff…”, exactly what payoff?   A payoff to NASA?  A payoff to the researcher?  A payoff to the university?  A payoff to the dealer?  A payoff to Congress?  The White House?  A money payoff?  A gold plated honor badge?  Royalties?  Kickbacks?  Or maybe some extraordinary discovery that can be shared with the world?  CASIS’s motivation is to see NASA get a payoff?

          • ellegood says:
            0
            0

            I’m sensing some hostility in your post above. The research is by faculty and students at the university. They are being scientists, developing interesting technologies that I won’t go into here. 
            When I say “payoff” I mean NASA wants to see demonstrably useful research being conducted on the ISS, as a result of the huge investment that has gone into the facility. Obviously CASIS does too.

        • ellegood says:
          0
          0

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      Does CASIS provide funding for payload development or only for flight? Do they accept unsolicited proposals? Have they issued RFPs? Does commercial application imply that the payload customer will itself make a profit? Suppose the scientific data is of practical value but the researcher isn’t in a position to commercialize it because it is not intellectual property? I can’t find much on the CASIS website.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        Excellent questions DS3, and important ones.

        I couldn’t find any answers on their web site either, nor at NASA, nor NanoLabs. Personally, I don’t see why, in time, the National Lab setup can’t be a mixture of public asset and facilities for hire (commercial, if you prefer).

        Lacking any information to the contrary, I’m assuming that CASIS can and will write a contract for each “use” (experiment) that is specific to the user/experiment. Some contracts could be non-profit, for educational and public welfare purposes, while others could involve charges (let’s call them user fees). Within the constraints of NASA rules and the law, each contract can be unique, but a set of, say, half a dozen tailorable standard contracts is probably a better way to go I think. Contract rates could be based on things like duration, repeat customer, discount for volume, and whether CASIS personal are used on site to operate experiments (another big issue as yet unanswered).

        I suspect that CASIS will also go into the space transportation business as an incentive for experimenters, giving them a one-stop shopping opportunity, and that will certainly be paid for by users. Experiment installation and removal could be part of a package deal as well.

        I’d like to see a situation whereby CASIS could optionally make a profit on extras like transportation and operating experiments in the name of the US National Laboratory (CASIS itself being non-profit), and pump those profits right back into the US National Laboratory for operating costs, maintenance and expansion. The trick would be to get Congress to agree to not cut the ISS operating budget by the amount of any profits, so that this becomes a test case in working towards self-sufficiency in space operations. It would also be a big step forward in terms of NASA not being the sole customer in US HSF, something that can change a lot of factors for the better.

        I don’t think there should any issue about a US commercial entity making a profit which they reinvest into their section of the ISS. Russia more than set a precedent with their ISS tourism deals; money which the companies involved kept. This might force the business-case-doesn’t-close objectors to reexamine their stand. Any moves towards self-sufficiency leads the way to the stage of ROI from space for investors; a small step admittedly, but it’s a start.

        It’s been slow, and it’s going to take a lot more time yet, but CASIS may just end up being the first actual case of making money from space. The road is opening up, let’s just hope that the greedy, the space-Luddites and the politicians will ulterior motives don’t put up insurmountable road blocks. I’m looking forward to the day when kids won’t understand the saying that “the sky’s the limit.”

        Steve

        • dogstar29 says:
          0
          0

          There  are numerous companies that make profits in space in communications and observation for the commercial and government markets. A few make profits with launch services, spacecraft manufacturing and tourism. For the most part these companies have either self-financed their R&D or sold it directly to the government customer without needing a nonprofit intermediary.

          There are also a variety of interesting experiments that can be done for pure scientific understanding, mostly in astronomical observation but also some microgravity experiments.

          But over the past 30 years every proposal for profitable business based on microgravity operations or extraterrestrial resources has turned out to be wistful thinking at best and fraud at worst. If an organization makes the claim that it will “commercialize” space, its customers have to make a profit by doing something other than getting more government grants.

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            dogstar3,

            I should have been more careful in what I wrote.  When I suggested that CASIS (on behalf of the US Lab) might be the first to show a profit, I meant the first venture that involved and required having people in space.  I realize that there are lots of unmanned cases, comm sats being the best example, but aside from Shuttle crews and ISS on-orbit personnel, everything to date that I can think of did not require people off planet.  Hubble repair doesn’t make the list because there was no potential monetary profit (quite the opposite), but it does help illustrate a possible future market.

            Steve

      • bhspace says:
        0
        0

        Yes they do aqccept unsolicited proposals.  As I have been told they are looking to provide potential funding for payloads if they meet certain criteria.  I was told they would post the criteria for project evaluation in the very near future and request for additional proposals in some key reserach areas.  I was also told that some announcements will be made at the NSS that will describe how and who to work with for these noval concepts.   I think they are making great progress.