NASA & World Space Exploration...News, Views, Photos & videos


avatar1234

New Member
Registered Member
So you believe that commercial space stations will be funded by tourists wanting to make an orbit around earth inside a station?
That there will be enough of them to fund the whole multi billion project? I've read that ISS cost 150 billion to complete. And that running it costs 3 billion per year.
Granted, previous launches costed some 400 million per launch, and spacex launch costs some 60 million.
But even if the same ratio is applied to the entire cost of the station, that still means some 25 billion to complete a commercial station and some half a billion a year to run it.
Of course, smaller station may cost less but i don't think the price would shrink linearly.

Pharma was mentioned as another user of commerical space stations. How much would they pay, and for what? What benefits do they enjoy?

And finally, is there another source of income for commercial space stations?
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
So you believe that commercial space stations will be funded by tourists wanting to make an orbit around earth inside a station?
That there will be enough of them to fund the whole multi billion project? I've read that ISS cost 150 billion to complete. And that running it costs 3 billion per year.
Granted, previous launches costed some 400 million per launch, and spacex launch costs some 60 million.
But even if the same ratio is applied to the entire cost of the station, that still means some 25 billion to complete a commercial station and some half a billion a year to run it.
Of course, smaller station may cost less but i don't think the price would shrink linearly.

Pharma was mentioned as another user of commerical space stations. How much would they pay, and for what? What benefits do they enjoy?

And finally, is there another source of income for commercial space stations?
ISS is in my opinion a poor comparison as the station architecture and programming was developed to push “Jointness” and an “International inclusivity” vs cost effective. The Truss system an unmanned assembly required about a dozen shuttle launches. The shuttle by then having proven not to be the pitched cost effective reusable launch system. The manned international segment required subsidized construction with partners. The manned international segments were derived from the base Payload modules of the shuttle and required manufacturing in Italy. The Russian segment basically demanded NASA to pay for the Russian Space program. With the Russians still trying to convince NASA to save Mir until the 11th hour when NASA made it abundantly clear they weren’t going to keep that wreck that the Russians had ruined. This is then combined with the modules that were under construction but canceled resulting in cancellation fees. P2/S2, The Habitation module, CRV, Science power module, centrifuge module. ISS was a Halo project. Meant more for ideals than practical.
A modern commercial station would be smaller in launches. Modern technology has evolved and inflatable modules are now a proven technology resulting in a lighter package that offers larger internal volume. Less labor intensive assembly. The only reason for a large assembly like ISS now would be if the new station were built on the bones of ISS. Replacing modules as they retire.
Single module stations for tourists would be akin to low end hotels. No labs just life support and communications. Lab systems would get more complicated. Yet the size of inflatables means more room to do it.
As for Pharma they have used ISS to study the effects of micro gravity, drugs, ostioprosus and a number of treatments. Investing millions for experiments. Of course a manned commercial station isn’t the only option the X37B is suspected to be doing unmanned missions testing electrical systems.
 

anzha

Junior Member
Registered Member
Nauka unexpectedly fires thrusters after docking, tilts space station - NASA explains

It was actually a lot worse than advertised originally.

Time lapse of the flips done by the ISS:


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In addition, NASA could not do anything to stop Nauka: the Russians had complete control only. The Russians also didn't and really don't know how much propellant is left in the module.

Not to sound overly dramatic, but the Russians nearly had an asat test there. oy.
 
Last edited:

PiSigma

"the engineer"
It was actually a lot worse than advertised originally.

Time lapse of the flips done by the ISS:


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In addition, NASA could not do anything to stop Nauka: the Russians had complete control only. The Russians also didn't and really don't know how much propellant is left in the module.

Not to sound overly dramatic, but the Russians nearly had an asat test there. oy.
Sounds like it's not an accident
 

Top