JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-08-24 11:54, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Buying a car doesn't give you access to or rights to the IP in the
car. If it's about IP, you buy the IP, not the car. In addition,
since ISS is NASA the IP is already public. Most of the IP isn't what
you want for a Mars trip anyway.


Ok, then, perhaps the value is in running the thing for a few years to
get experience on how to run an "expedition ship". Right now, SpaceX has
0 experience in manned spaceflight.


The only way experience gained from ISS would help is if your
'expedition ship' is built out of ISS parts. It won't be.


The IP may be public domain, but the experience on how to operate such a
ship can only be gained by running it. A lot of knowledge transfer would
happen if SpaceX also gets to transfer ISS employees to SpaceX.


The only way that experience helps is if you need experience on
operating ISS. SpaceX doesn't, since whatever they build won't be
ISS. Why in the hell would they want to 'transfer employees'? They
aren't slaves, you know. If SpaceX wants them, they'll just hire
them.


They get that by putting up their own station, too, only better.

Putting up its own station will work a lot better if SpaceX will have
had experience running the ISS, finding out what its advantages and
pitfalls are. Just as the USA did with Mir before designing ISS with
bigger doors etc.


What are you gibbering about now? Mir had nothing to do with ISS, was
never operated by NASA to 'gain experience' that you seem to think is
so crucial.



ISS
is in a horrible orbital plane. This was done deliberately so that
Russian launchers can reach it. SpaceX would want a station (if they
want a station) in a much lower inclination orbit.


Unless the trip to Mars will be an international venture and they also
want Russians to participate. (Russia may be a "bad boy" right now, but
that gets quickly forgotten after change of president).


Why in the **** would SpaceX want to partner with Russia?


Without a vehicle such as the Shuttle, the ISS becomes a fully equipped
garage to build a new ship. Complete with power, arms, ECLSS and taxi
service, software to get ships to it and station keep next to it etc
which makes starting assmebly of new vehicle really easy.


No, it doesn't make it "really easy" at all, because you're expending
resources to maintain and operate an old and decaying station instead
of building what you need.


Yeah, high inclination means lower payloads and more launches. But you
get to start with real assmebly righta way because the ISS is already
fully equipped, so you save on some flights early on until the new ship
has enough autonomy that it no longer requires ISS support.


Why do you think SpaceX will build ANYTHING in orbit? Have you even
looked at Musk's Mars plans?


Which brings us back to the question of why? What advantage does
SpaceX get out of this? I don't see one.

I can see some advantages. Whether they are worth it is another question.


If they're not 'worth it' then they are not 'advantages'. In that
case they are DISadvantages, which is all I see to your approach.


There could be "ego" involved too. SpaceX winning contract to run the
IUS side of station would be a blow to Boeing and others and give SpaceX
much international stature/recognition.


What 'contract to run'? NASA wants to SELL the thing because they
have no budget to operate it anymore. If they have no budget to
operate it, they have no budget to pay someone else to operate it. So
you're asking someone to BUY ISS plus spend over $2 billion a year of
their own money to operate and support it for 'ego'.


That may help it get the contract to get to Mars over the other guys.


NASA currently spends around $2.3 billion per year on ISS. It'd be
cheaper for SpaceX to just spend that money on going to Mars instead
of waiting for a 'contract' to go.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn