NASA's ISS Commercialization Plans With CASIS Collide WIth Reality
NASA’s Management and Utilization of the International Space Station, NASA OIG
“Specifically, we question whether a sufficient business case exists under which private companies will be able to develop a self-sustaining and profit-making business independent of significant Federal funding within the next 6 years. Likewise, any extension of the ISS past 2024 would require continued funding in the neighborhood of $3-$4 billion annually to operate and maintain the Station – a significant portion of which could otherwise be redirected to develop systems needed for NASA’s cislunar or deep space ambitions. In addition, extending the Station’s life would challenge NASA to manage the risks associated with continued operation of the Station’s aging systems and infrastructure. Furthermore, any extension will require the support of NASA’s international partners, whose continued participation hinges on issues ranging from geopolitics to differing space exploration goals.”
OIG: NASA’s Management of the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS) (2018) earlier post
“By 2024, NASA will have invested $196 million in CASIS. In our opinion, weaknesses in performance measurement and the lack of an overall strategy have created an environment in which NASA continues to accept incremental improvement rather than more tangible attainment of agreed-upon goals. Consequently, without significant change, CASIS likely will fall short of advancing NASA’s goal for a commercial economy in low Earth orbit. NASA needs to engage more substantively with CASIS and exercise more effective oversight of the cooperative agreement to clarify CASIS’s role in helping build a robust economy in low Earth orbit.”
Examining The Future of the International Space Station, Statement of NASA IG Paul Martin, (2018) earlier post
“Candidly, the scant commercial interest shown in the Station over its nearly 20 years of operation gives us pause about the Agency’s current plan. This concern is illustrated by NASA’s limited success in stimulating non-NASA activity aboard the Station through the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space, Inc. (CASIS). Established in 2011 to facilitate use of the ISS by commercial companies, academia, and other Government and non-Government actors for their research or commercial purposes, CASIS’s efforts have fallen short of expectations.”
OIG: NASA’s Management of the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS) (2018) earlier post
“Although CASIS awarded $21.7 million in grants to 140 projects between fiscal years (FY) 2013 and 2016, the organization has underperformed on tasks important to achieving NASA’s goal of building a commercial space economy in low Earth orbit.”
Previous ISS postings
Reality is a really tough thing.
I am thinking that a “Lunar Gateway” in GEO might be a better catalyst to a public private partnership?
https://yellowdragonblog.co…
Xenon fuel depot satellite servicing and building a very large comsat
The ISS was just not designed to be commercialized. It makes about as much sense as turning a surplus B-52 into a commercial airliner. So the question is does NASA allow it to continue to use up its limited resources or does NASA dump in the ocean and develop a lunar gateway to replace it? Or even better, dump it in the ocean and just rent space on commercial stations in LEO and lunar orbit?
Let’s be wildly optimistic about commercial ventures like Blue Origin, Virgin and SpaceX. If you can get the launch costs down far enough, and make space tourism viable, there would be a market for tourist attractions. Why not boost ISS to a higher orbit (high enough to have a half century of life against orbital decay but not high enough to get into the Van Allen belts) and save it as a museum piece? If memory serves, that sort of thing has been done that with B-52s and other military aircraft (as well as aircraft carriers and battleships.)
What cost level would be considered to be “viable” for a permanent sustainable business model? A value sufficiently low enough for the average person to take a trip at least once a year for 20 years? And what is going to keep people motivated to go a second or third time when nothing will change at the space tourism destination if it were in orbit (suborbital not even considered repeatable). Are they planing on putting in casinos, universe class cuisine, pools, easy personal EVAs, etc? I think not.
Almost any cost level could be sustainable as a business model. If it costs a billion dollars per ticket, and I can sell one ticket a decade for $1.1 billion, I’m making a $10 million per year in profits. That’s quite a bit more than my NASA contracts and grants cover… That wouldn’t be what I’d call a thriving industry, but it would be a viable niche market.
I’m not sure why you think yearly trips for decades, by the average person, are requirement for a tourist industry. How many times have you been to Alaska, Hawai’i, Paris, Rome or Kyoto? All those places have thriving tourist industries. But the average person doesn’t go to all of them on an annual basis.
What would make people come back? Well, I’ve been to Paris, but there are plenty of things there I’ve never seen. Just the Musee du Louvre is more than anyone can really take in on a single visit. The next time I’m in San Diego, I might visit the USS Midway. I’ve been to San Diego a few times, but I’ve never gone to that museum ship. That’s the sort of variety of tourist attractions that makes for a viable industry.
If you can get spaceflight down to the “low” costs a billionaire can afford, I can imagine some repeat business: “Well, I was in space a few years ago, but I spent the whole time on free fall gymnastics. It might be nice to go back and visit ISS.”
A study by Aerospace Corp for the DOD about ten years ago found the price point needed for the market to expand sufficiently for sustainable comercial human spaceflight (tourists but also other paying customers including government agencies and research programs) was about $1M per seat. There has been some inflation but i think about that level that is still an achievable and probably necessary goal. Otherwise the market is likely to remain too small. The BFR might come close to this.
That is a really good idea, and it would make sense to turn it into a museum of early spaceflight. But would NASA (and the Russians) let go of it and allow it to be preserved that way? If they do it would make a good tourist attraction.
Transfer of ownership would be an issue. I’m not sure if NASA has any consistent position on the subject. But at least some people within NASA seem to want to sell ISS off, or even give it away, to anyone who would pay to keep it running. I suspect the Russians wouldn’t turn down a sufficiently large check. I’m not sure about Japan, Canada or ESA. The real question is how big those checks would have to be, and what the space tourism market would support.
But the 2024 (or whenever deadline) is probably too soon for space tourism. Most likely, this would be a matter of putting ISS in a high, “bone yard” orbit, so that it would be available as a tourist trap a decade later. That’s a long-term and speculative investment, and that’s what someone would have to invest in. I’m not sure how much money you could pull in.
True, it will be a while. As for ownership, the only entity that would make any sense would be the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. I don’t see a private group wanting it. If I recall, they already have first call on any NASA hardware that is regarded as historic.
The Smithsonian would be a reasonable choice. But the on orbit museum would involve operating a spacecraft, and the Smithsonian has no experience with that. If the idea is at all viable, I’d favor an AO and a call for bids.
One problem with space tourism, at least as it stands now, is lack of destinations. This would start to solve the problem.
I wonder about the maintenance costs associated with this idea? Any way to estimate?
Not a good way to estimate it, but if you wanted to mothball ISS (until the tourist industry was mature enough), it might be tens of millions a year, or less. But the more completely you turn the lights out, the more it would cost to start up again. Actually operating it as a museum, that would be more expensive. But assuming tourists is also assuming significantly lower launch costs. So now we get into the world of how low the cost of BFR or New Glenn would actually be.
The efficacy questions attached to a lunar station aside, the idea of NASA renting space on a commercial station makes about as much sense as, say, paying for air mail in 1920.
In other words, it is a terrific idea.
The ISS in its essence and practice is a huge “technology demonstration” platform. That is how it should be leveraged.
Going from ISS to “Gateway” in most every sense is a diminished condition like going from the Space Shuttle back to the “capsule” – sense of awe and inspiration, mass to orbit, free flight lifetime, potential for in-space development AND more importantly it does nothing to bridge the biological impact gap between the 1g and micro-g environments, which is fundamentally needed data for understanding human habitation of any other location in the solar system. Its proposed partially inhabited state eliminates our goal of permanent human habitation off Earth. Again, going the wrong way. And if you think its hard to sell “science” on ISS, well, just wait. Its actual scientific return for the cost will be underwhelming at best, and given NASA’s history of only being able to handle one big program at a time, the odds of “Gateway” needing to be canceled before returning to the Moon or Mars is very high. And as this country approaches 400 million people by 2045 with continuing environmental, political and resource pressures, there will be no money left to do all those fantastic things. I hate being pessimistic, but odds are…
A major problem with the science being conducted on the ISS is lack of public awareness of the research and the potential benefits to humanity. Part of this lack of awareness is due to the laws passed by Congress that prohibits NASA from lobbying for itself. The recent flight of the cargo Dragon carried stem cell experiments that can only be done in microgravity, and the orbit is not only reachable, but the return of frozen cells via the Dragon could mean medical advances that will spell the difference of life or death to victims of a number of diseases. Some of this research is being done in conjunction with a major hospital group. To deorbit the ISS would be a shame unless it can be replaced by a facility with equal capabilities.
Support for continued operation of the ISS or a replacement for it depends on Congressional approval. And that means support by an informed public!
True.
Why is public awareness an issue? Most people do not know about the details of medical research being performed aimed at new medicines or treatments. It is only an issue if the researchers are looking for donations or medical test subjects. Research being done aimed at new technology development is mainly aimed at new systems for NASA vehicles. NASA gets no shortage of funds for its activities. The budget has not been going down. I am not sure if NASA got more that they would do anymore with it, since they seem to waste an awful lot of what they get. Potential benefits for humanity-we hear that theme and that refrain a lot but so far I have not seen a lot of those results coming from ISS. A lot of the researchers who were doing that kind of work on ISS, and before that on Shuttle and earlier vehicles, were cut off from NASA funding years ago and NASA made it far more difficult, time consuming and expensive to get payloads on-board to the point a lot of researchers walked away. That was NASA’s doing thanks to poor management in the ISS program. If there is real current research promising real benefits show me. I’ve seen enough flame balls and maneuvering spheres over the last 20 years that I keep wondering why they keep doing those things? Nothing better to do I assume. Astronauts just biding their time?
NASA human space flight was doing better with commercialization 25 years ago with centers for commercial spaceflight and Spacehab than they re today with ISS. 25 years ago there was serious commercial intent and Spcehab was a commercial owner and operator which had to be efficient both because of program and financial pressures. Then ISS made things completely inefficient and destroyed any semblance of commercial processes and interests, which leads us directly to today’s failed situation. CASIS did not help, but they offered far to little, far too late to make a difference.
At that time NASA acknowledged that with rare exceptions ISS research would have to be government funded, as it is almost entirely basic research that may provide useful knowledge but not immediate profits. The current commercial paradigm, requiring a quasiprivate “ISS manager” seems to be based on the assumption that commercial investors would essentially fund ISS, which is not realistic.