Can the ISS be Privatized?

Tom Merkle wrote:

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

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.

Why didn't anyone buy Mir when the Russians were trying to sell it?

Likewise, when/if HST gets replaced by the JWST, why doesn't someone offer
to buy HST rather than crash it into the atmosphere?

Eric

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:35:21 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.

No one asked you to.

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:33:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris 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.

By spending an ungodly amount of money. They didn't build cheap
vehicles.

Privately developed launch
vehicles have yet to put their first ounce of payload into orbit, 35
years later.

Because they haven't been funded.

If the program is properly structured (bypassing the
existing manned spaceflight bureaucracy) it could succeed.

And if my aunt had testicles she'd be my uncle.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:35:21 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.

No one asked you to.

sigh

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:33:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
Morris 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.

By spending an ungodly amount of money. They didn't build cheap
vehicles.

They weren't asked to do it cheaply. They were asked to do it quickly.

Privately developed launch
vehicles have yet to put their first ounce of payload into orbit, 35
years later.

Because they haven't been funded.

Because the corporations and individuals with that kind of money are
smart enough not to risk it on an unproven market.

If the program is properly structured (bypassing the
existing manned spaceflight bureaucracy) it could succeed.

And if my aunt had testicles she'd be my uncle.

And if you come up with a good business plan you will get funded.

Dick Morris ) wrote:


: Rand Simberg wrote:
:
: On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:33:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, Dick
: Morris 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.
:
: By spending an ungodly amount of money. They didn't build cheap
: vehicles.
:
: They weren't asked to do it cheaply. They were asked to do it quickly.
:
: Privately developed launch
: vehicles have yet to put their first ounce of payload into orbit, 35
: years later.
:
: Because they haven't been funded.
:
: Because the corporations and individuals with that kind of money are
: smart enough not to risk it on an unproven market.

Well said!

:
: If the program is properly structured (bypassing the
: existing manned spaceflight bureaucracy) it could succeed.
:
: And if my aunt had testicles she'd be my uncle.

: And if you come up with a good business plan you will get funded.

I thought you were going to give him a lecture on transexuality?

Eric

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:21:23 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 government managed to get Apollo to the Moon in 8 years, from a
standing start, with 1960's technology.

By spending an ungodly amount of money. They didn't build cheap
vehicles.

They weren't asked to do it cheaply. They were asked to do it quickly.

Exactly. There's no existence proof that they can do it (or anything)
cheaply.

Privately developed launch
vehicles have yet to put their first ounce of payload into orbit, 35
years later.

Because they haven't been funded.

Because the corporations and individuals with that kind of money are
smart enough not to risk it on an unproven market.

Which says nothing about their ability to build low-cost launchers,
given funding.

And if you come up with a good business plan you will get funded.

That may yet happen. In fact, I expect it to.

(Rich Pournelle) wrote in message . com...
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?


It doesn't make sense to keep ISS running, because the design
structure is inherently flawed, maybe among other reasons. In fact,
the design structure is absolutely ridiculous.

I think it should be understood that corporations, contractors I mean,
have been doing the work on all these wildly inefficient projects; of
course they've been supported with government money, but it is not
primarily NASA's staff that does the work, at least on the big
projects.

It really hasn't been understood, quite purposefully in my view, that
a big function of NASA is to support industry--in other words,
corporate welfare. That is the reason for what they call "pork".

The corporate-government partnership is how the US has developed the
large majority of its important technical innovations in the last 50
years. Especially through the military.

To a large extent long-term research doesn't happen without government
subsidy. There are a lot of ideologues who want to privatize
everything, but nobody will ever do it, because it becomes obvious
that it would cause economic collapse.

I find it rather odd, just to note, the whole "privatization" idea. In
NASA's case this would apparently just mean ceasing government
subsidy. Apparently, we are going to go into space faster if there is
$15 billion less money going toward space projects in this country.
You really have to be a fanatic to believe such nonsense.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:21:23 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 government managed to get Apollo to the Moon in 8 years, from a
standing start, with 1960's technology.

By spending an ungodly amount of money. They didn't build cheap
vehicles.

They weren't asked to do it cheaply. They were asked to do it quickly.

Exactly. There's no existence proof that they can do it (or anything)
cheaply.

NASA cannot operate an RLV cheaply, at their launch rate, but an RLV can
certainly be developed with government funding. If Congress directs
that the design be selected based, primarily, on the criteria of minimum
recurring cost, then the private sector will be able to use the vehicle
to drive down costs.

Privately developed launch
vehicles have yet to put their first ounce of payload into orbit, 35
years later.

Because they haven't been funded.

Because the corporations and individuals with that kind of money are
smart enough not to risk it on an unproven market.

Which says nothing about their ability to build low-cost launchers,
given funding.

Boeing can build a launcher with low recurring costs just as soon as
somebody puts up the money.

Suppose Congress were to establish an "LEO Prize", with an award of,
say, $10 billion to any US company which demonstrates, within 10 years,
the ability to launch, say, a 20,000 lb. payload into LEO twice within a
period of two weeks using the same vehicle. Do you think that might get
some action?

And if you come up with a good business plan you will get funded.

That may yet happen. In fact, I expect it to.

Good luck. Is it time to start holding my breath yet? :-)