You have a few billion pounds to spare and want to set up a new company selling journeys into space. What will you invest your money in? A piece of equipment designed in the 1980s that needs constant maintenance, or start again with a brand new, tailored design using today's technology?
For a few people, this could become a very real problem in just six years' time.
The future of the International Space Station (ISS) is uncertain. The ISS is a joint venture between the space agencies of Canada, the US, Russia, Japan and Europe, but the majority of the money comes from Nasa. The agency spends $3.5 billion a year on the ISS, with an additional $1 billion coming from the other contributors combined. This revenue stream could come to a halt in 2024, as it was revealed earlier this week in the 2019 fiscal year budget.
If the US stops funding the space station, other countries could fill the gap. This is inevitable, according to former astronaut Mark Kelly.
"Other countries will undoubtedly fill the void left by American withdrawal - most notably China and Russia, countries we consider significant rivals," says Kelly, in an editorial for the New York Times. "Not only would they reap the economic and political benefits of leading in space but they also could change the direction of the world's collective space endeavors in a way inimical to American interests and values."
But that isn't Trump's plan. He wants to fund a $150 million program that "would begin support for commercial partners to encourage development of capabilities that the private sector and Nasa can use." In other words, he wants to sell it to a private company.
Selling the space station might not be as easy as it first appears - take it from someone who would know. Today, Jeffrey Manber is CEO of NanoRacks, the commercial company which teamed up with Nasa earlier this year to design the ISS's first commercial air lock. But in 1999, Manber was CEO of MirCorp, the company that tried to commercialise Russia's Mir space station.
After operating for 13 years, the plan was to sell the Mir space station to private companies, possibly to become the world's first in-orbit television studio. In December 1999, MirCorp was given the first commercial lease agreement for an orbiting manned space station. The Russian space agency worked alongside MirCorp, to try and find potential space tourists to visit the station. They secured a contract with American businessman Dennis Tito, for him to become the first space tourist.
Two astronauts flew to the then-dormant station to prepare it for space tourists. They stayed there for 76 days while adverts for a new reality TV show that would see winners flown into space, Destination Mir, were being broadcasted on Earth.
However, in June 2000 the Russian space agency announced it could no longer fund the station, as it had to focus on its involvement with the ISS. The station was de-orbited in 2001, and Denis Tito never ended up visiting Mir, instead he went to its new and improved rival, the ISS.
Now, the ISS could be facing a similar situation, if the US decides to stop funding.
"From my experience marketing the world's first commercial platform, the Mir, the overriding lesson is that older space stations begin to resemble older houses and more and more of the astronauts' time will be taken up with repairs and maintenance," Manber says. "It's my feeling by 2024 it will be optimal to have new platforms, dedicated to market niches, with 2020 technology and not 1980s technology like the station is."
As for who might buy it, the answer is unclear. "I’m in favour of private, commercial, space in general, but I have my doubts that a commercial ISS is viable," says John O'Sullivan, author of In the Footsteps of Columbus: European Missions to the International Space Station. Plus, it would be a complex thing to try and sell. "The US section is shared by various agreements by the Nasa, ESA, JAXA and CSA. Even the Columbus module, which was paid for by ESA is shared with the others."
Then there's the running costs. "Even if it was sold for €1, the running costs would be out of reach of any commercial operator," adds O'Sullivan. "SpaceX, Bigelow, etcetera, would prefer to build in value operations from the start of any design."
Whatever happens, the budget is a sign that Nasa will not be blocking the move to an increasingly privatised space industry.
"The importance of the presidents' budget request is that it starts the debate on how to transition to commercial platforms while emphasizing we need to keep the current ecosystem," says Manber "meaning the launch services and the IGA (Intergovernmental Agreement) and the other space station resources that we have developed as a nation and as a program."
"Now we need to build on this legacy and this ecosystem and not necessarily keep in orbit as one piece that will be a 40-year-old platform," he adds. "That was a key problem with the space shuttle program; we keep it operational for too long and we did not adequately plan for the transition."
This article was originally published by WIRED UK
