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

Commercial ISS Space Ops: Just Bring Money. Lot's Of Money

By Marc Boucher
NASA Watch
June 5, 2018
Filed under
Commercial ISS Space Ops: Just Bring Money. Lot's Of Money

NASA’s new administrator says he’s talking to companies about taking over operations of the International Space Station, Washington Post
NASA is talking to several international companies about forming a consortium that would take over operation of the International Space Station and run it as a commercial space lab, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said in an interview.
‘We’re in a position now where there are people out there that can do commercial management of the International Space Station,’ Bridenstine said in his first extensive interview since being sworn in as NASA administrator in April. ‘I’ve talked to many large corporations that are interested in getting involved in that through a consortium, if you will.’
Marc’s note: The annual maintenance cost of the ISS per the article is about $3 – $4 billion in today’s dollars. While the idea of the commercial sector taking over operations of the space station isn’t a bad idea, I’ve yet to hear anyone present a business case that makes this work. I look forward to reading and evaluating any credible plan put forward.
Keith’s Note: There is nothing new in this article other than a Bridenstine quote or two. This topic has been openly debated since the FY 2019 budget proposal was issued by the White House in January. Here are a few of our posts:
Senators Tell White House: We Decide The Future Of ISS, earlier post
If CASIS Is How NASA Will Commercialize ISS That Plan Will Fail, earlier post
NASA OIG Delivers Blunt Reality Check On NASA’s Faith-Based ISS Plans, earlier post
NASA Quietly Submits ISS Transition Plan To Congress (Update), earlier post
Senators Blast NASA and OMB Over Future Of ISS, earlier post
Is Privatizing ISS A Smart Thing To Do?, earlier post
NASA Budget Document Overlooks Multiple Advisory Group Findings and Recommendations on the ISS, earlier post
ISS After 2025: Is CASIS The Solution Or The Problem?, earlier post
White House Plan To Defund ISS By 2025 Moves Ahead, earlier post
China Is Seeking Users For Their New Space Station, earlier post

SpaceRef co-founder, entrepreneur, writer, podcaster, nature lover and deep thinker.

13 responses to “Commercial ISS Space Ops: Just Bring Money. Lot's Of Money”

  1. DougSpace says:
    0
    0

    I doubt that there is a real business case where profits exceed total costs. Rather, I expect that the best that can be achieved is to partner with commercial entities to reduce the cost of ISS operations so as to, at least, free up some money (say a $B/year) that could go towards lunar development. So, something like $2.5 B/yr still going to the ISS without enough research or commercial product to justify it. But given that much of the $1 B/yr would come from TX, I doubt that Cruz would allow even that modest transition.

  2. Steve Pemberton says:
    0
    0

    The fact that international companies are mentioned could be a hint that there are potential government subsidies that could be available. I don’t see any U.S. companies seeing this as any type of sensible business decision, however there could be one or more countries where this would be seen as an opportunity to gain some prestige and experience. And with government subsidy they could possibly break even or make a profit.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Not surprised as the only part NASA “owns” are the US modules so commercialization will require an argeement among all the partners, would be easier some sort of international consortium of firms, which of course implies subsidies by some of the governments involved.

  3. TheBrett says:
    0
    0

    The only way I see it happening is with a back-door tax subsidy to take it over, since none of the space research so far has found anything incredibly valuable enough to justify a commercial takeover with station operating costs of $3-4 billion/year. Maybe a partial takeover is more plausible, although you’d think that if there was research that valuable commercial partners would already be lining up right now to take over part of the cost in exchange for expediting their projects.

    A lot of the research could probably be done with a much smaller station, maybe just a habitat module with life support, a module for experiments, and solar panels/radiators. IIRC the Russians have talked about separating off their modules at the end of ISS’s planned mission and using it for a different station – maybe we could operate a smaller station out of ISS parts for research at a lower operating cost. That’s assuming it’s not just cheaper for companies to launch their microgravity experiments on their own independent flights for automated testing (although if we’re spending the money on a space station anyways for political funding reasons . . . )

  4. Todd Austin says:
    0
    0

    The first thing that comes to mind when I see ‘consortium’ is ULA and its cost-plus contracts. I can just see this turning out that way, costing NASA (and us) even more for the same thing we’re getting now.

  5. ProfSWhiplash says:
    0
    0

    I can acknowledge that a $3-4B annual maintenance cost for ISS would choke even the deepest pocketed com’l space “true believers” like Musk or Bezos (or Bigelow for that matter)…, but then I stepped back and realize I should first turn on my NASA/Govey Lab-coated Acquisitionese filtration “App” to get a real-world number on that sort of cost.

    I’m WAGging this, but I’d bet the cost would closer to $1B… admittedly still high, considering the work it would take to maintain this Astronautical Erector Set.

    I’m sure a lot of that bloated bucks comes from in relying on “non-US” transport for crew and cargo. I’d bet CRS is making a dent; and once com’l crew get flying, it’ll drop even lower… but that’ll assume NASA won’t want to keep paying Russian extortion rates (“just in case”).

    The 24/7 Data/Comm could use a 21st Cntry facelift, too.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      I highly doubt a commercial operation would spend 4 billion just to maintain it..

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      Perhaps NASA’s role will be similar to the NSF, funding but not conducting research. Or similar to the old NACA, which conducted fundamental research which US companies needed to build new aircraft (well, now, it would be spacecraft.)

    • Bill Housley says:
      0
      0

      I’ve seen Bigelow’s pricing. I don’t remember what it was, but it seemed to me at the time to target government agencies, not private interests. They’ll probably need some credible competitors to help them fix that. 😉

    • Daniel Woodard says:
      0
      0

      Even with efficiencies that a commercial operator might achieve, the question remains, who is going to pay the bill? If NASA still wants to fly payloads, or even astronauts, and is willing to pay for it, as they do with commercial cargo now, that could be an answer. But it is hard to see what commercial customers, other than tourists, would actually pay for that would make it a viable business.

  6. Richard Brezinski says:
    0
    0

    I find the entire discussion fascinating, but completely disconcerting.

    During the Shuttle era, NASA human space flight management claimed they were the “operators”. A lot of the Apollo vets said how stupid, they were not operators, they were “controllers”. They took the word “operator” as a slap in the face.

    Personally I thought, regardless, the costs of operating Shuttle never improved, never got cheaper never got faster except for one bright spot and that was Spacehab operating as a commercial provider. Spacehab provided a turnkey operation. Spacehab integrated the payloads, trained the crews, in many cases actually did engineering on the payloads when the payload customers could not do it themselves.

    Until the NASA operators screwed up, killed the Columbia crew, and destroyed the Spacehab double module in the process and when Spacehab had the nerve to sue in order to recoup their loss for their investors, NASA shut the Spacehab commercial operation down.

    Why was Spacehab contracted in the first place? Because NASA was investing in the development of payloads to show the taxpayers the viability and value of science done on a manned spacecraft, something that would be key in the ISS era.

    Fast forward 20 years. NASA now no longer wants to sponsor payloads and space utilization; apparently this is someone else’s department. Whose? NOAA, NSF? Where did the science money go?

    NASA over the last 20 years has gotten out of the business of designing and building spaceships. Apparently NASA management feels it is better done in Italy, where they designed and built most of the “US” modules of ISS, or by ESA who is building much of Orion, and now LOPG which will apparently be built elsewhere too.

    And now NASA also wants to relinquish “operations”. I guess we will hire that out to foreign astronauts too. Why not just sell the ISS to China?

    What is it NASA is going to be responsible for? International agreement management and foreign contract management? No one needs NASA any longer. If the rest of the world needs the US, maybe it is Space X that they need ?

    Maybe the NASA managers have become gun-shy? Maybe they figure NASA no longer has the ability to design things, or to build things, or to operate things, or even to do science in orbit (Nanoracks seems capable) ? What do we think NASA will do? what will be NASA’s role? Maybe the NASA era is over?

    It is amazing to see just how far and how fast the mighty of NASA have fallen.

    • Daniel Woodard says:
      0
      0

      I agree that Spacehab ran efficiently and saved money, but the amount they were “charged” by NASA for the Shuttle flight was also only a fraction of the actual cost.

  7. Bill Housley says:
    0
    0

    Anything that costs any government agency $3-4B annually could probably cost a properly structured private consortium of companies a whole lot less than that…between 10 and 25%. That is the nature of the beast.
    The problem is, THIS facility has been built around government logistics and support paradigms. By the time you restructure those logistics to be compatible with the way profitable companies do business, you’ll have an entirely different station design from the ground up.
    I stand by my earlier predictions. The ISS will be abandoned and deorbited as soon as private stations come online and prove viable. This will happen because the ISS will at that time be obsolete. I think this will happen sooner than its currently projected operational time table, but there will be a time of co-management between NASA and private interests (for a little too long) first.