Nasa to Open International Space Station to Tourists | Hacker News Reader

Nasa to Open International Space Station to Tourists

bbc.co.uk

249 pointsbem94129 comments

If I may, I am personally very excited for more people, especially wealthy people, to go into space so that many of them experience the overview effect.[0]

> The overview effect is a cognitive shift in awareness reported by some astronauts during spaceflight, often while viewing the Earth from outer space.

> It is the experience of seeing firsthand the reality of the Earth in space, which is immediately understood to be a tiny, fragile ball of life, "hanging in the void", shielded and nourished by a paper-thin atmosphere. From space, national boundaries vanish, the conflicts that divide people become less important, and the need to create a planetary society with the united will to protect this "pale blue dot" becomes both obvious and imperative.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect

Conceptually, I agree with your idea. I would like a lottery to emerge for anyone to get a space flight to experience the overview effect -- something I think that could reinvigorate interest in science and the planet.

Now I wonder if the Overview Effect can be addictive...

I'd need some serious convincing to accept that sending a randomly selected person into space would have anything close to the positive impact that sending the "Larry Ellison"s of the world into space could.

I agree - I’m all for fairness, but billionaires could come back to Earth and redirect billions of dollars. All I could do is, I dunno, write a medium post.

You're assuming there's zero benefit to experiencing space second-hand. Even if that effect is very small, it applies to enough people that it quickly overtakes any large first-hand effect.

America watching Neil Armstrong land on the moon had a much bigger effect than Neil Armstrong ever could have, even if he was the richest man alive.

But does America watching John Smith from NYC in space have a larger impact than seeing Larry Ellison (also from NYC) in space? Is that difference large enough to outweigh the impact that changing Ellison's worldview could have?

Also, if seeing people in space has such a huge impact... Can anyone name someone currently on the ISS from memory? I don't think the marginal impact of seeing more people in space is necessarily large.

John Smith from Queens is far more relatable than Larry Ellis is or ever will be. Nobody who isn’t being paid cares what Larry Ellis says now and going to space won’t change that.

Knowing any average person can accomplish their goals is far more motivating to many people, especially kids, than knowing the super rich can just up and leave the world and do absolutely anything they desire just because they find ways to extract wealth from the 99.9% who are only allowed to dream.

I agree, the potential impact of the individual is lower. It's not to say that the individual can have the same impact; it's primarily the system that promotes the opportunity that could have the impact on society, perhaps inspiring many, many more people. Not just to go to space but build technology, to manage organizations, etc that are part of space industry. Making space seem more accessible, rather than a luxury experience for the super-wealthy could have positive effects too.

Who knows, it’s all hypothesizing with dashes of optimism.

Seriously - I can't tell if you're being:

1. on topic (overview effect), or

2a. joking ("haha - send jerks like Ellison into space - one way ticket!"), or

2b. not joking ("send jerks like Ellison into space - one way ticket").

I imagine the overview effect might be something dramatically different for a sociopath.

I wonder if VR would provide the same effect with today's technology or of the upcoming future.

I thought the same as soon as I read the original comment—I've had minor but similar feeling in VR. Try "Irrational Exuberance."

Never tried VR, but my initial reaction went like this: how is viewing Earth from space different than just looking at a video? -> the viewport is larger -> just use VR.

You'll get the sense of scale in VR, but I don't think you can get the realization that below you would be billions of people walking and bustling around you cannot even sense. The feeling of being so zoomed out and everything feeling so small.

In VR, a pixel would be only a pixel rendered from a fixed texture map and nothing more. Might not have the same effect.

Plus, of course, you’d be in microgravity. I’m sure that adds quite a kick to the visuals (which wouldn’t be present in VR.)

Pretty sure, even a normal video gives me the feels.

Or LSD like the good old days

Gotta say though, I think the overview effect is its own form of delusion. Whether you think other strangers' conflicts are petty or not is immaterial to whether or not they should continue. You can't just not conflict, it's simply not an option. From the extremely privileged (not to downplay the incredibly hard work and model perseverance of astronauts) perspective of an astronaut, of course other people's kinds of lives seem trivial, because you have no idea how other people live.

How come no Russian cosmonauts have reported this?

Americans and their weird need to turn everything they feel into something marketable more like it...

> How come no Russian cosmonauts have reported this?

May have reported but is kept as a state secret? Also, it could be in russian which we can't understand.

Both Valentin Lebedev and Anatoty Berzovoy have reported similar experiences to name two cosmonauts. Unlike most US astronauts, many cosmonauts continue working for government and do not publish books, or engage in public speaking in the same way (largely due to fewer marketing opportunities), so the overview efect tends to be reported largely from a US perspective. However UK astronaut Time Peak reported similar findings as has, Swiss astronaut Claude Nicollier and dutch astronaut Andre Kuipers (to name a few others). It will be interesting to see as the taikonauts begin to talk about their space experiences, if they report it or not.

Thanks. I had not heard of this effect. Now I am just wondering if it can be triggered by watching the earth on a large screen...

If it becomes cheap enough, it’ll eventually be a thing CEOs do to give meat to their motivational speeches and brag about how accomplished they are, much like climbing Everest. I fear it being less of a “I’m going to try to understand the world more after going to space”, and more of a “I understand the world more because I went to space and you didn’t.”

[1] is a link to the NASA press release.

At a glance, it looks less about space tourism and more about enabling private companies to begin manufacturing and development in LEO or conduct experiments that NASA themselves don't need to be directly involved in.

In fact it seems to specifically call out that private astronauts are only allowed if they enable the allowed "activities".

Also, it looks like they are looking to have a dedicated "commercial" section of the ISS, and long term they want to have multiple commercial destinations in LEO!

[1] https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-opens-international-...

It'd be great if they mandated that any research performed must be made public with free use of that research.

Absolutely! The private company will have some high costs associated with a single trip, but it’s the taxpayers that footed most of the $100B station to make it all possible.

You won't get any takers for offsetting some of that $100B in costs if there's zero incentive for a private company to fund such research.

This is a misunderstanding of open source. Just because you share your research does not mean there is zero benefit to doing that research. There is significant benefit to getting the answers you need. There’s a lot of groups that would value getting their research done even if they have to share it, including universities and public healthcare research institutions outside of the US. Requiring that the information be open would not starve nasa of customers, it would simply attract different customers. Forcing the research to be public could have significant benefits to the world.

I'm really thirsty, oh look a well built by the public, hey there's a bucket stall in the nearby town, I could get a bucket and then everyone can have a drink ... oh hang on though, other people might use my bucket.

Oh, best just stay thirsty then.

Hang on, perhaps I can force the people to pay for security guards that stop them from using my bucket ...

We are, of course, talking about research to develop intellectual property. Probably most people on HN are employed in producing protected intellectual property in some way.

> Probably most people on HN are employed in producing protected intellectual property in some way.

I don't think most people on HN even believe in intellectual property conceptually, much less view their activities through that lens.

I develop software, and that software has a license (mostly AGPLv3 at this point) because I live in the real world. But it's nobody's property; it's just math.

Okay, and the companies that might utilize the space station also have to exist in the real world.

Not if you register one while you are up there.

Maybe I'm just missing your line of reasoning here. I thought you were saying that you expected people on HN to rush to the defense of intellectual property as a viable abstraction for understanding (for example) software or research. Do I have it wrong?

Yes, companies exist in the real world. The real world is full of open source. And full of companies that produce open source material and don't regard it as "intellectual property" except insofar as to license it to protect themselves and their users/readers/customers.

That's a terrible analogy. A better analogy is I could buy a bucket but somebody might (will!) take it home and use it as a footstool and I will have wasted my money.

That's not analogous, open research doesn't prevent you using it.

Presumably you think copyright infringement is theft too.

Nice ad hominem.

The problem IP laws try to solve is that the best researcher is not necessarily in the best position to execute on their discoveries. Or, worse, executing on the discovery is incredibly cheap (such as new drugs) and the value is impossible to recover. The more expensive the research, the more likely that is to be.

Research either needs to be publically funded OR some kind of limited monopoly applied.

None of this implies that the current IP mechanisms are not seriously broken.

If you really don't get any takers you can always later decide to change the modalities. No reason to start with something profiting only a few from the start.

The taxpayers including the corporation that makes the trip. And why should competitors benefit equally from the research when they didn't pay a share of the company's cost to use the space station.

So why would any private company fund such research?

Because the research would benefit them?

If I offered you an deal that paid you $10 for every $1 invested, with the caveat that it would also pay your competitor $11, would you actually not accept it?

Wouldn't it be rational to wait for my competitor to take you up on that deal? Then I could spend the extra money on research that only benefits myself.

Applied across all actors, your strategy results in nobody taking the deal, the worst outcome for everyone but me.

It’s such a strange, “everyone loses” attitude, but people are strange. Studies of the Ultimatum Game [1] show that people will actually refuse free money if it meant someone else got more.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game

Surely more rational: club together and pay the cost you all pay less, you can repeat and get access to even more opportunities, you can all get the benefits.

Without coming down on either side, the simple answer here is because the funding company would be ahead of competitors.

In high-tech markets, pioneers often develop durable leads (Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, Amazon, etc.). There's a huge business advantage to having the IP + the team that developed that IP in one place.

Conversely, handing over IP alone doesn't build a business. For example, Tesla could give away all their private IP for the Model 3 and it would still take a lot of investment for a competitor to arrive at a parity offering (which would be years behind, because Tesla's teams haven't stopped). Because the product is much more than a sum of the basic research.

I imagine this is pushed forwards by the advances in in-orbit production of optical fibre. From what I gather microgravity helps producing much better optical fibre, at a cheaper price than producing high quality optical fibre on earth, with a prototype production unit being shipped to the ISS [1].

Of course to further develop this commercially and gather funding you would need some assurance that there is actually a viable way to produce things in orbit without setting up an entire space station yourself. And that's exactly what NASA is announcing.

1: https://upward.issnationallab.org/the-race-to-manufacture-zb...

>> $35,000 (£27,500) per night.

That is cheaper than the multi-room suites on board the A380. It's cheaper than renting many boats.

Or maybe this is a trick. How long is a "night" on space station? Only an hour or so iirc. Maybe they get back to earth and get a surprise Expedia bill on their cc.

Yes, but won’t it costs millions to get there?

"These companies are likely to charge any private astronaut a similar "taxi fare" to what they intend to charge Nasa for its astronauts - close to $60m per flight."

But that money wouldn't be going to Nasa. They will get rides on private rockets. And so if they are going to be spending many millions on getting there, Nasa should be charging much much more than 40k/night. A million/night would be more than reasonable imho given what tourists will already be spending to get there.

I've heard that the laws of your home apply in space, so some Californian should get a 30 day lease then force them to evict them :D

A great way to become the first human to be Spaced.

Getting someone evicted in California might take 2 years in court. For it to be that hard, they have to be in residence for over 2 years. There are all kinds of shenanigans lawyers can pull to draw out such processes.

Evictions usually happen much faster than that, like on the orders of days or weeks. See https://www.attorneydavid.com/blog/how-long-does-it-take-to-...

I've spoken to Bay Area attorneys about this. Non-disputed evictions take 4-6 weeks. That's non-disputed. That's on the long side! Other jurisdictions take a few days to 2 weeks for non-disputed. An additional month for disputed evictions is an average, so that's up to 10 weeks or so. It can drag out for much longer. It depends on how good the case is for each side.

In the parts of Canada I've lived the rules very much bias in favour of the resident, based on the logic that the cost to the landlord is financial but the cost to the residents is safety, health, etc.

If I recall, in some places you can't even evict in the winter. Same applies to utilities: it's illegal to disconnect heat (whether gas or electricity) in the winter even if for non payment.

Personally I prefer protecting residents at the cost of some people who exploit the system.

This is the logic behind California's laws.

>An additional month for disputed evictions is an average

Because we know in advance the tenant can never win.

Taking 4 months to get the tenant out isn't exactly a "win" for the landlord.

State laws wouldn't apply. Only Federal.

California would find a way.

Most likely that "way" would be supporting private space station developers with various subsidies. Though it's fun to imagine the "Singapore scenario" where California goes independent due to some spat over space rights, with Musk becoming a space general in the rebellion ;-)

Whatever happen to the satellite California was going to launch to study climate change. Is that still happening?

That is not unique to California. Most states have a lengthy eviction process.

Or there will be some surprise parking/docking fees.

What about an oxygen consumption fee?

No fee, it's BYOO

It's included in the $35k: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1136994156595859456

It's always extra for wifi

The wifi (and they do literally have wifi on ISS) is $50/GB in this announcement. Considering the resource constraints on ISS, perfectly reasonable. Generous, even.

Yet another reminder of exactly how horrible my cellphone plan is.

Exactly, you pay much more for a GB outside the EU when roaming.

Launch cost extra.

And atmospheric entry 10x extra. Unless you want to go the "bank account is drained" route, in which case they boot you out with feathers glued to your arms and wish you best of luck.

$35K per night is oddly cheap, yeah. I think the ISS operates in the neighborhood of $6M per crewmember-day (where a day is 24 hours).

You're correct that there's no real night on the ISS. It sits in low earth orbit (LEO) and circles the Earth every 90 minutes. 45 minutes of sunlight, 45 minutes of shade.

I wonder what the marginal cost per crewmember is. On the one hand, there's a lot of ground control infrastructure that supports the ISS that doesn't care how many crewmembers there are. On the other, the cost of resupply missions is probably directly proportional to the number of mouths.

Maybe it's $35k per night, but meals cost extra (a lot extra).

The trick is that (like national park camping spots) all accommodations are gone in seconds on https://recreation.gov

I love that they are doing this, but I am worried it may not be enough to keep the ISS up past 2024, but it is a good first step.

Some context for those that haven’t been following closely: It costs NASA over 4 billion a year to maintain the ISS. [0]

While the vast majority of that cost is transportation to/from the ISS (around 2.4 billion), there is a sizeable chuck that if they could “offload” to the private sector, may allow NASA to keep the ISS in orbit longer than currently planned.

The problem is, at least until they grow a true market, that market isn’t big enough to support that maintenance.

So, I believe the strategy (which makes sense) is try and get a true market/interest in the ISS going. If they can do that successfully, it should lower the cost for everyone, potentially allowing for even more things to happen in LEO.

So we will see, but I will note one of the biggest risks for SpaceX/Blue Origin/others doing commercial resupply is that once ISS disappears, there is no ready customer/market for their commercial offerings for crew. No way faster to kill the infant commercial crew space industry than to starve it of revenue.

[0] https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2018...

They've done this before. Charles Simonyi [0] went up to the ISS in 2007 and 2009. I got to talk to him via ham radio.

Space Adventures [1] has been doing it since 2001, but it seem they haven't had any recent trips.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Simonyi [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Adventures

The previous space tourism was operated by the Russian space agency out of the Russian section of the ISS. NASA didn't particularly like this at the time but weren't in a position to do much about it.

Most people talk about 1) tourism and 2) research which makes sense, but I can see a lot of benefit for marketing and branding. Imagine promo videos of someone using your gadget in space. A private company could fly up a few models/actors, a few of the latest brands goods, and get shots looking back at earth or floating around.

Luxury goods like watches and pens have already capitalized on this (Fisher Space Pen, Omega Moonwatch). I could see other high margin luxury brands snagging a seat:

- Sneakers (Air Jordans -> Space Jordans?)

- Jewelry (Diamond industry could play up a diamonds/stars theme)

- Fashion (play up the weightless/effortless aspect)

Any brand could get in on it if someone figured out the economics of a testing service. Small brands and Kickstarter projects could pool resources and fly up a few hundred toys and say they were 'tested in space'.

> fly up a few models/actors

More like 1, even for the biggest brands. This is going to be way expensive. I think you are onto a good idea, except I get the impression NASA will prioritize missions that contribute to commercial or science R&D and/or production.

From the press release:

To qualify, commercial and marketing activities must either: require the unique microgravity environment to enable manufacturing, production or development of a commercial application; have a connection to NASA’s mission; or support the development of a sustainable low-Earth orbit economy.

That's a good point. There will be prioritization, and the costs could be so high as to rule out brand plays even if they could get the rules interpreted as loosely as possible. My idea might need to bake a bit longer. :)

> Imagine promo videos of someone using your gadget in space.

Corny as hell, and we can just film it on a greenscreen in LA.

Also, people look really freakin' goofy in zero-G.

>Corny as hell, and we can just film it on a greenscreen in LA.

Or the "Vomit Comet"

“the best and brightest minds in the world ...”

Given that ISS belongs to multiple countries (US / Russia / Japan / Canada / UE), is NASA allowed to sell tickets to travel there and get keep the benefits of the sell for itself ?

The article mentioned that Russia has already done so, so I would say yes.

It also appears the vast majority of the expense (99%) will be in the ferrying fees paid to SpaceX or Boeing.

Each module is owned by its respective country.

So Canadians get strapped on for a ride on the Canadarm2? /s

NASA I believe gets a certain number of slots and will be giving up an astronaut slot for each of these tourist flights. When Dragon and Starliner finally start flying though they'll be able to increase the number of people able to be on the station at once so net they're probably no worse off than before. Currently only 6 people (up to 9 but only briefly during a handover) can be on board at once because each Soyuz can only carry 3 people. Crew Dragon can hold up to 7 but most of the time will be flying with less, iirc 3-4.

It's NASA. Why don't the Brits understand acronyms?

It's Americans who are inconsistent with acronyms. Do you write LASER or RADAR? If it's pronounceable as a word, it's written as such. If it's pronounceable as letters, it's written how you would expect.

To be fair, the BBC style guide[1] isn't totally consistent either, though in general, initialisms are upper-case and acronyms are title-case (as we see here).

[1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art201307021121335...

I remembered the EoL date for ISS being 2024, but it looks like a bill was passed this September extending it to 2030.

https://spacenews.com/house-joins-senate-in-push-to-extend-i...

Why not consider running an auction in the early years to maximize private funding for operations?

From the official tweet:

> @Space_Station is open for commercial business! Watch @Astro_Christina talk about the steps we're taking to make our orbiting laboratory accessible to all Americans.

Why is it limited only to Americans?

They are only allowing a very small number of people to go aboard, so I don't think it's that bizarre that a US agency is only picking Americans for the initial program.

I think it's more the "for access to the international space station" part that the questioner is interested in?

If the ISS is actually international then shouldn't access be open to all.

Nor that one expects USA decision makers not to extend their imperialism to space though.

In general, the ISS is international. But each country has its limited resources that can be spent on getting people into space. Additionally, the ISS can only support so many people at once, and parts of the station belong to different countries (as I understand it). As far as I'm aware, nothing is stopping other space agencies from having a similar program.

I understand why people want even more progress, but getting private American astronauts into space to conduct research is a significant first step as far as I'm concerned.

"international" as in "multiple nations", not as in "everyone". It's a cooperation between multiple nations. If the US won't take you up you can still ask Russia, the EU, Canada and Japan if one of them will host you on the ISS.

Could this be because of similar reasons why SpaceX can’t hire non US citizens due to their rockets qualifying as ICBMs? I remember Elon mentioning this in a press conference.

Each part is owned by different countries. For example Russia used their part for commercial purposes for many years to bring in paying tourists.

> Why is it limited only to Americans?

Security clearances. You can't even visit an aerospace company without being a US citizen or getting special clearance from the government.

The food and room service better be top notch for what I'm paying here! Commander Kononenko, when the heck is my laundry gonna be done?! Hop hop!

Whole new market for NoAirB&B rentals..

> Nasa's announcement on Friday is part of a move towards full privatisation of the ISS. US President Donald Trump published a budget last year which called for the station to be defunded by the government by 2025.

I had no idea that the ISS was going to be de-funded. Does that even make sense?

I never heard this before and it doesn't pass the sniff test.

Not giving NASA as much money as they and the public would like is one thing, every congress and administration since probably LBJ does that. Specifically "de-funding" one of their flagship projects would cause massive public backlash. Besides, congress writes the budget. Anything Trump "publishes" is just political posturing without much meaning. Therefore I suspect that this is just some out of context or misrepresented tidbit that worked its way in after the author googled around to figure out the recent history of privatization of space. Then again, I wouldn't at all be surprised if Trump published a wish list budget and literally forgot to put NASA on it. I'm betting reality is probably more nuanced than the one sentence the author distilled it down to.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-budget-proposal-plans-of-nasa-fun...

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/08/bringing-down-iss-pl...

The ISS has had several defunding dates set and extended, by both Republican and Democratic administrations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station_pr...

>"Plans to privatize the ISS made headlines earlier this year when NASA revealed The White House intended to pull the plug on federal finances in 2025. This isn't the first time privatization murmurs have surfaced for the space station, but a recent NASA audit suggests a conversion to private operation may not be feasible."

>"According to NASA forecasts, there are two main options the ISS could take to stay afloat pending a lack of federal funding. The first proposition involves larger private sector investment, and the agency readily acknowledges it's already taken baby steps to increase commercialization."

https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/31/nasa-expresses-doubts-ov...

The ISS has a limited life due to thermal cycling and such. (One hot/cold cycle every 90 minutes). Think airliner cycles. The first part was launched in 1998.

ISS was actually supposed to be deorbited in the 2015 timeframe under Bush II (to make funds available for the Constellation program), later extended to 2020 and then 2025.

I think most expect ISS to stay in orbit until 2028 or maybe a little later, so some extension is likely to happen regardless of what Trump's policy is (same as how Obama extended ISS). 30 years is a really long time for safety-critical space hardware, and ISS absorbs an astronomical amount of funding. It's not hyperbole to say that the Trump Moon shot would have plenty of funding if ISS wasn't around. We're talking about an additional $4-5 billion per year.

How does Russia feel about this? They have modules too, and face similar issues.

There were some nebulous plans to split off the Russian modules as a core for a new station.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Piloted_Assembly_and_E...

I'm extremely dubious of their ability to fund such an endeavour.

I remember being angry when Congress cancelled fundings for Superconducting Super Collider but kept those for Space Station Freedom. From a scientific discovery standpoint, the decision was utterly unjustifiable. I'm willing to accept the contention that space exploration is more than science--it's the fulfillment of Man's aspiration. But if the existence of the space station becomes an impediment to space exploration itself then what exactly is the point?

I'm not sure I agree. Building ever-bigger colliders has pretty hardcore diminishing returns. ISS (what Space Station Freedom became) is also a platform with a whole bunch of scientific and now commercial applications, many of which were not even foreseen at the time. Additionally, CERN ended up building CERN, which basically accomplished the goals of SSC. I doubt anyone else would have taken up the mantle of ISS other than a few small modules.

But I agree it's potentially problematic that ISS has become a budget drain on NASA. That's why it's good to look for alternative customers/uses of ISS other than being entirely paid for by NASA.

Hey Bbc, it's NASA not Nasa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization_in_English

> In British English, only the initial letter of an acronym is capitalized if the acronym is read as a word, e.g., "Unesco."

You say "Bee Bee Cee", so they're the BBC. You do not say "Enn Aay Ess Aay", so it's "Nasa". "Nato" and "the UN". etc. Americans do it differently, but telling the folks who invented the language they're doing it wrong is a bit silly.

Great information but adding the "but telling the folks who invented the language they're doing it wrong is a bit silly." seemed unnessesary, not least I'm sure BBC do make mistakes from time to time. Nothing wrong with polite questioning no matter how expert someone is.

Really off-topic and nit-picking: if you are going to editorialize the title to capital letters for every words (tourists -> Tourists) then do it at least for `NASA`.

While I Am At It, I Do Dislike random Capitalization :) and those rules https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/capitalization/rules-for-...

Acronyms that become words sometimes lose their capitalization. Nasa is headed there.