Can the ISS be Privatized?

Is the ISS another Concorde or Space Shuttle that will never survive
outside captivity (government subsidies)? Or is the ISS like DARPANET
in the early days - a government resource that can be privatized to
start an industry? I have heard the ISS is mostly very old technology
for things like life support because NASA would only let the Russians
use proven technology.

Assuming you had low cost to orbit through mass ELVs or some sort of
RLV how much would it cost to keep the ISS running? How much could you
make off things like long-duration microgravity and tourism? Can you
make a case that the number will ever add up?

"Rich Pournelle" wrote in message
om...
Is the ISS another Concorde or Space Shuttle that will never survive
outside captivity (government subsidies)? Or is the ISS like DARPANET
in the early days - a government resource that can be privatized to
start an industry? I have heard the ISS is mostly very old technology
for things like life support because NASA would only let the Russians
use proven technology.

Assuming you had low cost to orbit through mass ELVs or some sort of
RLV how much would it cost to keep the ISS running? How much could you
make off things like long-duration microgravity and tourism? Can you
make a case that the number will ever add up?

No.

(Rich Pournelle) wrote in message . com...
Is the ISS another Concorde or Space Shuttle that will never survive
outside captivity (government subsidies)?

Concorde made a healthy profit for many years and survived outside
captivity. Granted, it was bred in captivity, but it survived in the
wild till a combination of harsher climates, an injury, and old age
killed it off.

"Phil A. Buster" wrote:

"Rich Pournelle" wrote in message
om...
Is the ISS another Concorde or Space Shuttle that will never survive
outside captivity (government subsidies)? Or is the ISS like DARPANET
in the early days - a government resource that can be privatized to
start an industry? I have heard the ISS is mostly very old technology
for things like life support because NASA would only let the Russians
use proven technology.

Assuming you had low cost to orbit through mass ELVs or some sort of
RLV how much would it cost to keep the ISS running? How much could you
make off things like long-duration microgravity and tourism? Can you
make a case that the number will ever add up?

No.

The numbers for LEO tourism may add up - if the government picks up the
tab for the RLV development.

"Rich Pournelle" wrote in message
om...
Is the ISS another Concorde or Space Shuttle that will never survive
outside captivity (government subsidies)? Or is the ISS like DARPANET
in the early days - a government resource that can be privatized to
start an industry? I have heard the ISS is mostly very old technology
for things like life support because NASA would only let the Russians
use proven technology.

Assuming you had low cost to orbit through mass ELVs or some sort of
RLV how much would it cost to keep the ISS running? How much could you
make off things like long-duration microgravity and tourism? Can you
make a case that the number will ever add up?

If you gave it to the Russians, they would probably use it for tourism for 3
years and then shut it down. They would shut it down for two reasons:
1. They would run out of people willing to pay $10 million.
2. Spending money on maintenance would wipe out their profits. Without
maintenance, it would eventually die.

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:31:49 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

The numbers for LEO tourism may add up - if the government picks up the
tab for the RLV development.

Even if not.

Dick Morris wrote in message ...

The numbers for LEO tourism may add up - if the government picks up the
tab for the RLV development.

I can't think of a better way to keep the cost out of reach. (except
making it illegal)

Tom Merkle

On 27 Jan 2004 23:41:04 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(Tom Merkle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Dick Morris wrote in message ...

The numbers for LEO tourism may add up - if the government picks up the
tab for the RLV development.

I can't think of a better way to keep the cost out of reach. (except
making it illegal)

Agreed.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On 27 Jan 2004 23:41:04 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(Tom Merkle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Dick Morris wrote in message ...

The numbers for LEO tourism may add up - if the government picks up the
tab for the RLV development.

I can't think of a better way to keep the cost out of reach. (except
making it illegal)

Agreed.

The government managed to get Apollo to the Moon in 8 years, from a
standing start, with 1960's technology. Privately developed launch
vehicles have yet to put their first ounce of payload into orbit, 35
years later. If the program is properly structured (bypassing the
existing manned spaceflight bureaucracy) it could succeed. I'm sure
getting tired of waiting for one of those startups to meet one of their
advertized launch dates.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:31:49 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

The numbers for LEO tourism may add up - if the government picks up the
tab for the RLV development.

Even if not.

I'm not going to hold my breath until it happens.