The White House Plans to Privatize the International Space Station

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,003
According to NASA documents, the government intends to turn the International Space Station over to the private sector as a means of keeping it afloat without direct federal support, which is expected to end in 2025. Skeptics say that this is troubling, as the ISS was built for science, not business.

In its budget request, to be released Monday, the administration would request $150 million in fiscal year 2019, with more in additional years “to enable the development and maturation of commercial entities and capabilities which will ensure that commercial successors to the ISS — potentially including elements of the ISS — are operational when they are needed.”
 

Chebsy

Gawd
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
523
Ive got an idea, private company (SpaceX et al) strap some big booster rockets on it and use it to get men to Mars !!
 

Gorankar

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
11,017
Science is business. I consider privatization a better alternative to a controlled atmospheric burn up, or an intentional crash landing in the ocean. That is where the station is headed otherwise. It is past it's original EOL already, and they are not going to just keep extending it like they did this time.
 

TorxT3D

Gawd
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
649
Long gone are the days of federal funded missions and hardware.

Privatization is needed, and should have been a decade ago.
If americans dont wanna spend the extra tax money for space exploration, then hand it over..
But when private companies start hand picking certain people for the jobs, i dont wanna hear shit. Americans should have jumped on the space exploration tax a long time ago, maybe we'd be on mars by now.

Too much red tape, politics, bs, and waiting for funds with a federal funded space group.
Time to grow up, time to move onto greater lands.
 

atarumoroboshi18

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 9, 2013
Messages
191
Sell it to Elon, he'll make good use of it!

JDqnhsK.gif
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,512
So "The White House" is deciding to turn over the INTERNATIONAL space station to corporate interest to turn into a fancy hotel?
 

James Robinson

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Messages
292
Long gone are the days of federal funded missions and hardware.

Privatization is needed, and should have been a decade ago.
If americans dont wanna spend the extra tax money for space exploration, then hand it over..
But when private companies start hand picking certain people for the jobs, i dont wanna hear shit. Americans should have jumped on the space exploration tax a long time ago, maybe we'd be on mars by now.

Too much red tape, politics, bs, and waiting for funds with a federal funded space group.
Time to grow up, time to move onto greater lands.

All they need to stop doing is funding trillion dollar shitfest "super advanced cutting edge ships and aircraft" that spend the entirety of their existence in storage because they don't work... problem solved and programs funded.. WEEEEEE!

I remember getting the order to expend ALL of our stored ordinance one summer at the MAU... seems Manufactures needed a new build and supply contract, which wasn't going to be approved with our available stock. Didn't matter if none of it was scheduled for dump and destroy (due to age) for another half decade.. we had to have a shortage NOW
 

Dullard

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Messages
3,774
Long gone are the days of federal funded missions and hardware.

Privatization is needed, and should have been a decade ago.
If americans dont wanna spend the extra tax money for space exploration, then hand it over..
But when private companies start hand picking certain people for the jobs, i dont wanna hear shit. Americans should have jumped on the space exploration tax a long time ago, maybe we'd be on mars by now.

Too much red tape, politics, bs, and waiting for funds with a federal funded space group.
Time to grow up, time to move onto greater lands.

Space exploration is too big for the government, the private sector should do it.

Then on the other hand, health care is too big for the private sector, the government should do it.

It's all clear to me now.
 

thebufenator

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,383
Space exploration is too big for the government, the private sector should do it.

Then on the other hand, health care is too big for the private sector, the government should do it.

It's all clear to me now.

Different political parties mang.

I think SpaceX has been setting an example that others should follow.
 

DeathFromBelow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
7,316
I don't care who handles the logistics it as long as it continues to function as a national laboratory.
 

Nukester

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
1,429
Got it. Floating prison for worlds most dangerous. If and when it burns up in the atmosphere, who cares.
 

Chunder

Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
519
Don't feel like typing a long essay explaining this with evidence, but this development is extremely bad for humanity and is another step of the corporatist in Trumps administration attempting to sell America and our future. We need a global space program that engages in exploration, technology development, resource extraction, and future colonization for the benefit of humanity, not redundant CEO's and stockholders. We saw what happened last time governments let private companies take over in this area with the East India Trading Company, and it was a disaster. Companies can play a role in the space program like they did helping NASA get to the moon, but they shouldn't be taking the lead, or even having an equal part in it. They should be regulated and overseen by a fully independent space agency once again.

Oh, and the entire budget of NASA since its formation has been funded with less than 1 penny of our taxpayer's dollar, yet is the reason we had tremendous advances for humanity and are using the technology and medicine we have today(for those unaware, just look up "What has NASA given us". Imagine what could be done if NASA/ESA/JAXA/CNSA had just 1% of America's budget, or if we had a global program and dedicated just 1% of the world's budget to it.

 

thebufenator

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,383
NDT also was the guy that said private industry won't get us to Mars. I think SpaceX is hitting milestones better than government programs......
 

Gorankar

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
11,017
NDT also was the guy that said private industry won't get us to Mars. I think SpaceX is hitting milestones better than government programs......
The government does not need to succeed to stay in business. Corporations do have to eventually succeed, or they cease to exist. The levels of fraud, waste, and abuse in any government run endeavor tends to be fairly prevalent. The bigger the program, the more money involved, the more fraud, waste, and abuse. This does happen inside corporations as well, and even internal politics can get in the way, but as a rule not anywhere near on the scale as a US government entity. The horrifically expensive space pen, instead of just using a pencil comes to mind.
 
D

Deleted member 126051

Guest
I agree that space needs privatization.

NASA is still living in the era where it could throw away BILLIONS on a single launch.
Look at NASA's SLS. PURE old-school NASA.
Lifts 130 tons into space and the entire assembly becomes billion dollar space junk.

Now look at Falcon Heavy from SpaceX costs about 90 million to launch.
And the entire assembly is designed to be reusable.

As much as I think Elon Musk is a nattering prat with his hand in too many pies, SpaceX is the Real Deal for the future of space exploration.
 

TrailRunner

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
414
The government does not need to succeed to stay in business. Corporations do have to eventually succeed, or they cease to exist. The levels of fraud, waste, and abuse in any government run endeavor tends to be fairly prevalent. The bigger the program, the more money involved, the more fraud, waste, and abuse. This does happen inside corporations as well, and even internal politics can get in the way, but as a rule not anywhere near on the scale as a US government entity. The horrifically expensive space pen, instead of just using a pencil comes to mind.

https://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp
 

Gman1979

Gawd
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
640
$5 says this ends with Boeing or ULA associates as the private entity that gets the spot, depriving SpaceX of a primary launch customer since Boeing and ULA have their own launch systems. Guess they feel the need to correct the "evil" of the court decision forcing the DoD to give the same access to launch contracts ULA had a monopoly on previously..
 
Last edited:

Chunder

Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
519
NASA is still living in the era where it could throw away BILLIONS on a single launch.
Look at NASA's SLS. PURE old-school NASA.
Lifts 130 tons into space and the entire assembly becomes billion dollar space junk.

Now look at Falcon Heavy from SpaceX costs about 90 million to launch.
And the entire assembly is designed to be reusable.

I agree that NASA should work on reusing components, but this is something NASA needs to take the lead on and have the companies work for them like they did during the race to the moon. However, comparing the SLS to a Falcon Heavy is also like comparing an 18 wheeler to a Ford Pickup. In both cases, the SLS and 18 wheeler can carry higher volumes and far heavier equipment tremendous distances, whereas a FH and a pickup truck is good for hauling not so big and heavy things shorter distances. Going to the space station or the moon? Falcon Heavy is the best route, going to Mars or beyond for colonization? That's currently the SLS.
 
D

Deleted member 126051

Guest
I agree that NASA should work on reusing components, but this is something NASA needs to take the lead on and have the companies work for them like they did during the race to the moon. However, comparing the SLS to a Falcon Heavy is also like comparing an 18 wheeler to a Ford Pickup. In both cases, the SLS and 18 wheeler can carry higher volumes and far heavier equipment tremendous distances, whereas a FH and a pickup truck is good for hauling not so big and heavy things shorter distances. Going to the space station or the moon? Falcon Heavy is the best route, going to Mars or beyond for colonization? That's currently the SLS.


The problem is, NASA simply, constitutionally, institutionally CANNOT take the lead anymore.

Being government backed leaves them with a fundamental disconnect from the economics. The aforementioned SLS? The thing that basically THROWS AWAY a billion-PLUS dollars a launch? What's NASA's budget for space operations? Four billion?

Then they want to build an analogue to the ISS up in lunar orbit on the way to building a base on the moon.

Why? Not for actual eventual movement to Mars! Because, scientifically and economically, a straight-shot to Mars is a better proposition than trying to create some sort of lunar shipyard or launch base. Why? Because it's basically just a pointless stop-over.


They've been used to being the only gig in town for so long, and they don't have to worry about the money, the taxpayers will ALWAYS give them MORE.

So, while "Cheaper, faster, better" has been a byword there for decades now, it never REALLY penetrated the "Just Throw Money And Lives At It" culture. THAT had already ossified into the hyper-conservative, insular mess it is LONG ago. And said insular mess has a giant case of "Not Invented Here", and is completely unable to innovate.
 

travisty

Gawd
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
815
The problem is, NASA simply, constitutionally, institutionally CANNOT take the lead anymore.

Being government backed leaves them with a fundamental disconnect from the economics. The aforementioned SLS? The thing that basically THROWS AWAY a billion-PLUS dollars a launch? What's NASA's budget for space operations? Four billion?

Then they want to build an analogue to the ISS up in lunar orbit on the way to building a base on the moon.

Why? Not for actual eventual movement to Mars! Because, scientifically and economically, a straight-shot to Mars is a better proposition than trying to create some sort of lunar shipyard or launch base. Why? Because it's basically just a pointless stop-over.


They've been used to being the only gig in town for so long, and they don't have to worry about the money, the taxpayers will ALWAYS give them MORE.

So, while "Cheaper, faster, better" has been a byword there for decades now, it never REALLY penetrated the "Just Throw Money And Lives At It" culture. THAT had already ossified into the hyper-conservative, insular mess it is LONG ago. And said insular mess has a giant case of "Not Invented Here", and is completely unable to innovate.

....

Don't even know where to start other that saying, please educate yourself on how governments work and stop listening to faux and other blowhard right wing extreme talking heads.

Seeing as NASA has little say in what it can do since Congress has final say on all projects NASA can only work on what sounds interesting and doable - since Congressmen have no desire to see a failed launch because failure is bad and a waste of taxpayer money because losing tens of millions of dollars is better per launch :rolleyes: (more direct i'm saying SpaceX had 5 or 6 failed first stage landings before they finally got it? That'd never fly today with the idiots in congress)

What would work: Actually fund NASA instead of the atomic-width budget it's given compared to the military and allow NASA freedom equal to the Federal Reserve.

Or just dump money into SpaceX at this point as that'll be easier and more productive.
 
D

Deleted member 126051

Guest
I agree that NASA should work on reusing components, but this is something NASA needs to take the lead on and have the companies work for them like they did during the race to the moon. However, comparing the SLS to a Falcon Heavy is also like comparing an 18 wheeler to a Ford Pickup. In both cases, the SLS and 18 wheeler can carry higher volumes and far heavier equipment tremendous distances, whereas a FH and a pickup truck is good for hauling not so big and heavy things shorter distances. Going to the space station or the moon? Falcon Heavy is the best route, going to Mars or beyond for colonization? That's currently the SLS.

The problem is, NASA and their contractors simply CAN'T think that way. Their funding model doesn't let them.
 
D

Deleted member 126051

Guest
....

Seeing as NASA has little say in what it can do since Congress has final say on all projects NASA can only work on what sounds interesting and doable - since Congressmen have no desire to see a failed launch because failure is bad and a waste of taxpayer money because losing tens of millions of dollars is better per launch :rolleyes: (more direct i'm saying SpaceX had 5 or 6 failed first stage landings before they finally got it? That'd never fly today with the idiots in congress)

What would work: Actually fund NASA instead of the atomic-width budget it's given compared to the military and allow NASA freedom equal to the Federal Reserve.

Or just dump money into SpaceX at this point as that'll be easier and more productive.

The problem now is an entrenched culture.
It was brought about by how NASA is funded.

And while you're yelling about the failures for SpaceX. Yeah. 5-6 failures replicating what NASA contractors did 50 years ago in private industry TODAY.

And the total cost there? A couple hundred million dollars.

The cost of a SLS failure? A billion-plus dollars. And, even with a success, that billion dollars it totally written off.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

NASA basically can't adopt the mentality required to move forward. Again, because of their own entrenched culture, as well as the fact that their benefactor (the US government) can't allow it (again due to issues of entrenched culture and being risk averse).
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
794
the same fans that cheer when space launches are becoming the domain of commercial entities suddenly comes round and scream foul when they want to hand of the space station to a commercial entity

same bunch are also complaining that R&D of space tech ( which has dual purpose for military purposes) are too high, and yet most of this R&D are already done by private companies.

so, what exactly do the literate American want?

you cannot slice off a huge chunk of the military budget because wherever America lets go, China or Russia is there to take its place. ( and that comes with the loss of resource extraction access, and supply lines )
 

SomeoneElse

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
1,941
Space exploration is too big for the government, the private sector should do it.

Then on the other hand, health care makes too much money for the private sector, the government should do it.

It's all clear to me now.
FTFY......
 

mrp

n00b
Joined
Oct 28, 2005
Messages
47
Ive got an idea, private company (SpaceX et al) strap some big booster rockets on it and use it to get men to Mars !!
ISS was designed for LEO, it doesn't have the radiation shielding needed for deep space.
 

Dr. Righteous

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
3,163
Long gone are the days of federal funded missions and hardware.
Privatization is needed, and should have been a decade ago.
If americans dont wanna spend the extra tax money for space exploration, then hand it over..
But when private companies start hand picking certain people for the jobs, i dont wanna hear shit. Americans should have jumped on the space exploration tax a long time ago, maybe we'd be on mars by now.
Too much red tape, politics, bs, and waiting for funds with a federal funded space group.
Time to grow up, time to move onto greater lands.

The landscape of America has changed drastically since the genesis of the space program. America is so saddled with entitlement payouts it cannot afford space exploration. It has to private companies. This is the case in today's America. The best thing the government can do is get out of the way be easing regulation. To put it bluntly entitlement spending is killing us. Programs put in place in the last century to "help" Americans have been so abused it is ruining America.
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,710
So "The White House" is deciding to turn over the INTERNATIONAL space station to corporate interest to turn into a fancy hotel?
1) modern businesses are trans-national kind of a lot like marxists. Don't worry, there'll be a kickback for everyone I'm sure.
2) like the US didn't pay for most of it?
 

Jehuty

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
430
NASA might be better off being privatized than remaining in the government. All they do is slash funding and limiting their operations.

The government is all about that military might, spending trillions of dollars on useless junk that will stay in storage without ever seeing the light of day. Trillions of dollars spent in that shit when our own soldiers aren't given proper funding for equipment (I've heard of many having to buy their own protective gear because what they have is wildly inadequate), and they're not properly treated once their service is over.

The landscape of America has changed drastically since the genesis of the space program. America is so saddled with entitlement payouts it cannot afford space exploration. It has to private companies. This is the case in today's America. The best thing the government can do is get out of the way be easing regulation. To put it bluntly entitlement spending is killing us. Programs put in place in the last century to "help" Americans have been so abused it is ruining America.

Wait, what? Entitlement programs are a drop in a bucket compared to what we spend in military. ROI would far greater if we spent a quarter of what we do on entitlement programs than we do on the military. Military doesn't show shit, ever. Lots of fancy toys but some dudes with stones and AK47s and RPGs can fuck us all up for YEARS and still do so.
 

lostin3d

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
2,043
I'm mostly for this as it is a natural evolution of things. I normally disagree about the need for government involvement but regardless of which side of the fence it doesn't seem like ours is capable of handling this anymore.

Problem is, we already have numerous industries that have shown they can effectively control or ignore government involvement. Sooner or later space based business's will exhibit this same model. Basically once they escape the need for earth based resources or can out-source them evading any particular government's restrictions.
 
Top