Author Topic: Privatizing the ISS and how much does it really cost to maintain  (Read 3445 times)

Offline cferreir

Reading this morning about the fact that Trump admin wants to stop funding ISS by 2025 and am wondering how much it REALLY costs to maintain the ISS. The number currently thrown around is 3-4 billion a year but knowing NASA and how government space costs are RIDICULOUS, I wonder if anyone has done an analysis.... I am sure that NASA, ESA, JAXA and Russia are super padding their costs. I bet my prized GI Joe collection that the REAL cost to maintain and staff the ISS is an order of magnitude lower than what NASA pitches around....especially using Dragon2, BFR and other commercial launchers and industry.

Thoughts?

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 845
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 142
*gets popcorn ready*

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Reading this morning about the fact that Trump admin wants to stop funding ISS by 2025 and am wondering how much it REALLY costs to maintain the ISS. The number currently thrown around is 3-4 billion a year but knowing NASA and how government space costs are RIDICULOUS
They have not cared to reduce costs.
If they cared to reduce costs, they would be delivering things to as near the station as could be done in large volumes, and using minimally capable tanks with small cold gas thrusters on to close with the robot arm, and little else for delivery, not complex vehicles.

As one possible example.

Offline Joseph Peterson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 578
  • Likes Given: 14356
Reading this morning about the fact that Trump admin wants to stop funding ISS by 2025 and am wondering how much it REALLY costs to maintain the ISS. The number currently thrown around is 3-4 billion a year but knowing NASA and how government space costs are RIDICULOUS, I wonder if anyone has done an analysis.... I am sure that NASA, ESA, JAXA and Russia are super padding their costs. I bet my prized GI Joe collection that the REAL cost to maintain and staff the ISS is an order of magnitude lower than what NASA pitches around....especially using Dragon2, BFR and other commercial launchers and industry.

Thoughts?

You lose the bet, although you can hold onto your GI Joe collection.  I have my own. ;)

The $3-4 billion normally quoted to maintain ISS includes three primary components.  The largest component is space transportation at $2.6 billion(2017).  Station operations and maintenance is consistently in the $1.1 billion range.  Finally science gets ~$350 million.  While space transportation is projected to drop to $1.8 billion once commercial crew is online and Soyuz seat purchases are gone, it will still account for more that 50% of the normally quoted budget.  We've already privatized cargo transport, and 2020+ budget projections give us an official estimate for transportation costs once crew transport has privatized.  You can't simply use future cost projections(BFR) to claim current prices are too high.  If you can convince Boeing, Orbital, SNC, SpaceX, and ULA to launch a total of seven flights, both crew and cargo demand for ISS, per year, for less than a total of $200 million per year, within the next week, we can discuss you regaining the rights to your toys.

That said, private industry can learn to effectively build and operate LEO stations at a far lower cost than we are currently paying for ISS.  What is lacking is the money.  We are building a commercial station program, but it is only now beginning to receive the funding necessary for serious flight testing.  What we really need to do is to start discussing what NASA needs in the stations that will replace ISS.  We can't even consider how much we could save until we have an idea of how much we are going to do instead will cost. 

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
They have not cared to reduce costs.
If they cared to reduce costs, they would be delivering things to as near the station as could be done in large volumes, and using minimally capable tanks with small cold gas thrusters on to close with the robot arm, and little else for delivery, not complex vehicles.

As one possible example.

That is not a possible example and shows complete lack of understanding of the matter. Just plain ignorant.
« Last Edit: 05/25/2018 04:35 pm by Jim »

Offline cferreir

Reading this morning about the fact that Trump admin wants to stop funding ISS by 2025 and am wondering how much it REALLY costs to maintain the ISS. The number currently thrown around is 3-4 billion a year but knowing NASA and how government space costs are RIDICULOUS, I wonder if anyone has done an analysis.... I am sure that NASA, ESA, JAXA and Russia are super padding their costs. I bet my prized GI Joe collection that the REAL cost to maintain and staff the ISS is an order of magnitude lower than what NASA pitches around....especially using Dragon2, BFR and other commercial launchers and industry.

Thoughts?

You lose the bet, although you can hold onto your GI Joe collection.  I have my own. ;)

The $3-4 billion normally quoted to maintain ISS includes three primary components.  The largest component is space transportation at $2.6 billion(2017).  Station operations and maintenance is consistently in the $1.1 billion range.  Finally science gets ~$350 million.  While space transportation is projected to drop to $1.8 billion once commercial crew is online and Soyuz seat purchases are gone, it will still account for more that 50% of the normally quoted budget.  We've already privatized cargo transport, and 2020+ budget projections give us an official estimate for transportation costs once crew transport has privatized.  You can't simply use future cost projections(BFR) to claim current prices are too high.  If you can convince Boeing, Orbital, SNC, SpaceX, and ULA to launch a total of seven flights, both crew and cargo demand for ISS, per year, for less than a total of $200 million per year, within the next week, we can discuss you regaining the rights to your toys.

That said, private industry can learn to effectively build and operate LEO stations at a far lower cost than we are currently paying for ISS.  What is lacking is the money.  We are building a commercial station program, but it is only now beginning to receive the funding necessary for serious flight testing.  What we really need to do is to start discussing what NASA needs in the stations that will replace ISS.  We can't even consider how much we could save until we have an idea of how much we are going to do instead will cost.

Ok. Good answer but the $2.6 billion includes money for SNC to develop their system. If the ISS is to be privatized that would go away (I would still like NASA to fund stuff like that but a private ISS can't). So a private ISS would rely solely on available transports like SpaceX, Orbital and Boeing and buy them based on cost so that if it is cheaper to buy ALL SpaceX and Orbital so be it. Again, we are talking private so there is no incentive to "fund" jobs or keep engineering talent at Boeing for the future (which is NASA's mission and I understand the value there but it is NOT a private ISS mission). I know the price would be significantly lower than 2.6 billion.

Station operations in the 1.1 billion seems to me like the military buying toilet seats and wrenches for $5K each (i.e. there are costs hidden in there). There are A LOT of costs bundled in the 1.1 billion because the systems used are shared among a lot of NASA systems and missions. Again, I understand that but I wonder how much it costs SpaceX to operate their launch control and monitoring versus NASA and Boeing. I bet that if the operations were designed and operated solely for ISS the number would be much much less than 1.1 billion.

The one part of the equation that was never brought up is the Russian side. The main problem I see for operating the ISS as an efficient private operation is dealing with the Russian hardware and the fact that fuel resupply and station reboost are mainly done via the Russian side. God knows what unwinding that spider web of deals and NASA-Russian cooperation would involve and if they would even be interested. Jettisoning the Russian components is probably not feasible and thus a private ISS would be hostage to the Soyuz program and that might be the real deal killer.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
The one part of the equation that was never brought up is the Russian side. The main problem I see for operating the ISS as an efficient private operation is dealing with the Russian hardware and the fact that fuel resupply and station reboost are mainly done via the Russian side. God knows what unwinding that spider web of deals and NASA-Russian cooperation would involve and if they would even be interested. Jettisoning the Russian components is probably not feasible and thus a private ISS would be hostage to the Soyuz program and that might be the real deal killer.

There were plans for how to deal with the unavailability of the Zvezda Service Module and Progress spacecraft. It was called the ISS Propulsion Module.

It wasn't built, but given enough advance notice I'm sure such a module could be built, and supply vehicles could be created (i.e. a tanker version of Cygnus should be easy).

But overall we really don't know what the plans are for our ISS partners, so it's difficult to solidify any options without knowing what the other stakeholders want to do - or will allow to be done in the case of the Russians.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline blasphemer

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • Slovakia
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 1081
I think that a private station will certainly be less expensive, but not radically less expensive in absolute terms. There are large fixed costs in a complex and unique project such as a manned space station, so dont expect an order of magnitude difference. However, a private station could be much bigger than ISS due to economies of scale, which is where private enterprise truly excels. Think many large Bigelow modules and resupply flights on reusable rockets launching every week, for the same or lower price than ISS today. Assuming there is demand for such a large station, of course.

Unless private space stations really take off and NASA station is merely one of many. Then all bets are off.
« Last Edit: 05/25/2018 09:41 pm by blasphemer »

Offline ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 948
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 338
To what extent are the science experiments being done on ISS actually subsidized by NASA in the first place?  If that went away, would there still be sufficient demand?

Offline Joseph Peterson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 578
  • Likes Given: 14356

SNIP

You lose the bet, although you can hold onto your GI Joe collection.  I have my own. ;)

The $3-4 billion normally quoted to maintain ISS includes three primary components.  The largest component is space transportation at $2.6 billion(2017).  Station operations and maintenance is consistently in the $1.1 billion range.  Finally science gets ~$350 million.  While space transportation is projected to drop to $1.8 billion once commercial crew is online and Soyuz seat purchases are gone, it will still account for more that 50% of the normally quoted budget.  We've already privatized cargo transport, and 2020+ budget projections give us an official estimate for transportation costs once crew transport has privatized.  You can't simply use future cost projections(BFR) to claim current prices are too high.  If you can convince Boeing, Orbital, SNC, SpaceX, and ULA to launch a total of seven flights, both crew and cargo demand for ISS, per year, for less than a total of $200 million per year, within the next week, we can discuss you regaining the rights to your toys.

That said, private industry can learn to effectively build and operate LEO stations at a far lower cost than we are currently paying for ISS.  What is lacking is the money.  We are building a commercial station program, but it is only now beginning to receive the funding necessary for serious flight testing.  What we really need to do is to start discussing what NASA needs in the stations that will replace ISS.  We can't even consider how much we could save until we have an idea of how much we are going to do instead will cost.

Ok. Good answer but the $2.6 billion includes money for SNC to develop their system. If the ISS is to be privatized that would go away (I would still like NASA to fund stuff like that but a private ISS can't). So a private ISS would rely solely on available transports like SpaceX, Orbital and Boeing and buy them based on cost so that if it is cheaper to buy ALL SpaceX and Orbital so be it. Again, we are talking private so there is no incentive to "fund" jobs or keep engineering talent at Boeing for the future (which is NASA's mission and I understand the value there but it is NOT a private ISS mission). I know the price would be significantly lower than 2.6 billion.

Station operations in the 1.1 billion seems to me like the military buying toilet seats and wrenches for $5K each (i.e. there are costs hidden in there). There are A LOT of costs bundled in the 1.1 billion because the systems used are shared among a lot of NASA systems and missions. Again, I understand that but I wonder how much it costs SpaceX to operate their launch control and monitoring versus NASA and Boeing. I bet that if the operations were designed and operated solely for ISS the number would be much much less than 1.1 billion.

The one part of the equation that was never brought up is the Russian side. The main problem I see for operating the ISS as an efficient private operation is dealing with the Russian hardware and the fact that fuel resupply and station reboost are mainly done via the Russian side. God knows what unwinding that spider web of deals and NASA-Russian cooperation would involve and if they would even be interested. Jettisoning the Russian components is probably not feasible and thus a private ISS would be hostage to the Soyuz program and that might be the real deal killer.

Add DC is certified to the bold sentence in my comment then.  $1.8 billion is the project for transportation costs in the 2020's.  I included this projection specifically because we already have an acceptable estimate of future space transportation costs.

The key point is that the $1.1 billion operations and maintenance budget is what we can expect to be reduced by transitioning to commercial stations.  I fully believe it is possibly to operate and maintain a capable commercial station for a third of this amount(similar to cost reductions seen from commercial crew).  This rough estimate requires at least two companies operating competing commercial stations, lest we end up with a sole provider abusing their monopoly.  Assuming 33% cost reductions per station and 2 stations, projected savings from replacing ISS should be on the order of >$400 million. 

I must make it clear that I am not trying to predict the future.  >$400 million in savings is a ballpark estimate of what we should reasonably expect as of today, assuming we want to continue funding science at the same level.  Until we have a full discussion about what capabilities we want NASA to maintain in LEO, any number is a guess.

Cygnus will be, if it hasn't already, performing a station reboost test during the current supply mission.  Dream Chaser is also offering reboost capability.  There shouldn't be any reason why we can't continue ISS, even without the Russian section.  I don't think this was your key point though.  I believe that you are trying to claim that cooperating with the Russians will make it very difficult for a private company to operate ISS.  I don't have any specific reason to believe Russian intransigence is a deal breaker towards this concept of privatizing ISS.  The current problem I see is that we only have one ISS, so we'll only have one station management company.  Sole providers are just asking for cost increases.  I could see a provision in an ISS extension until 2028 that allows for hand-off to a management company once a commercial station is online.  Otherwise my belief is we should table this idea until a competitive station marketplace is closer to reality.

To what extent are the science experiments being done on ISS actually subsidized by NASA in the first place?  If that went away, would there still be sufficient demand?

Quote
$107M+: external (non-NASA non-CASIS) funding leveraged

https://ar2017.iss-casis.org/the-iss-national-lab-rd-portfolio/

NASA ISS research spending for 2017 was $347.3 million.  In 2017 NASA covered total 76% of the research budget.

My expectation, at this point in history, is that the HSF external research market would disappear if it had to pay for transportation as well as operations and maintenance.

Note:  External funding includes both institutional and commercial funding.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
I think that a private station will certainly be less expensive, but not radically less expensive in absolute terms. There are large fixed costs in a complex and unique project such as a manned space station, so dont expect an order of magnitude difference. However, a private station could be much bigger than ISS due to economies of scale, which is where private enterprise truly excels. Think many large Bigelow modules and resupply flights on reusable rockets launching every week, for the same or lower price than ISS today. Assuming there is demand for such a large station, of course.

Unless private space stations really take off and NASA station is merely one of many. Then all bets are off.

I think you are partially barking up the wrong tree.  Scale doesn't necessarily indicate costs.  Yes, you could build a much bigger station cheaper - but what exactly do you want it to do?  If you want a big bigelow module to hold a lot of hotel tourist that would be a  lot cheaper.  But where ISS is different is it is extremely flexible.  It can do a lot of different science and can be modified/used significantly differently than it was designed for (e.g., moving Node 3, adding berthing/docking ports).  However, this comes at a cost - literally.  Safety is also an issue - as a national asset the fault tolerance and redundancy on ISS is significant and also adds to the cost.

Now not saying private/commercial couldn't do it cheaper (if given the exact same requirements) or not as safely...but what I see here in this thread is people really proposing simpler options and then stating that it is clearly cheaper than NASA running the ISS. 

Offline cferreir

one more thing.....Ad Space! Geez how much would Coca Cola or Pepsi or Gazprom or Ethiad pay to advertise on the ISS! Damm, it could be renamed the Verizon Space Station... I bet the Ad revenue potential is....hmmm...Astronomical! Lets not even mention the trailing reflectors that could unfurl during the SuperBowl or New Year to be visible by the whole world.....
« Last Edit: 06/05/2018 05:00 am by cferreir »

Offline Steve G

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
  • Ottawa, ON
    • Stephen H Garrity
  • Liked: 616
  • Likes Given: 56
We need to project what the commercial space sector will look like in 2025. SpaceX, Boeing and perhaps Sierra Nevada will have privately owned crewed spacecraft, and there's still BO (whatever they're up to). Bigelow and perhaps others will have segments of space stations, and even New Glenn will provide the capacity for the first time since the early seventies to launch a wide-bodied core module. BFR, if it works, will also be a game changer. So why would the private sector want to manage an aging and behemoth with crippling maintenance and operating costs?

It would make a lot more sense for the private sector to design, build and operate a space station made from the latest technology scaled specifically for commercial operations.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0