5 ms·

[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 de

[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-space-station-to-new-commercial-opportunities-private https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-opens-international-...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
hanniabu 7y ago
It'd be great if they mandated that any research performed must be made public with free use of that research.
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  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.
  - Robotbeat 7y ago
    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.
    - TaylorAlexander 7y ago
      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.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      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 ...
      - Robotbeat 7y ago
        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.
        jMyles 7y ago
        > 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.
        Robotbeat 7y ago
        Okay, and the companies that might utilize the space station also have to exist in the real world.
        inflatableDodo 7y ago
        Not if you register one while you are up there.
        jMyles 7y ago
        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.
    - sgift 7y ago
      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.
  - travisoneill1 7y ago
    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.
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  So why would any private company fund such research?
  - ryandrake 7y ago
    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?
    - Permit 7y ago
      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.
      - ryandrake 7y ago
        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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
        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.
  - runako 7y ago
    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.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
wongarsu 7y ago
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-zblan/ https://upward.issnationallab.org/the-race-to-manufacture-zb...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

hanniabu 7y ago

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

TaylorAlexander 7y ago
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.
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  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.
  - TaylorAlexander 7y ago
    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.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    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 ...
    - Robotbeat 7y ago
      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.
      - jMyles 7y ago
        > 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.
        Robotbeat 7y ago
        Okay, and the companies that might utilize the space station also have to exist in the real world.
        inflatableDodo 7y ago
        Not if you register one while you are up there.
        jMyles 7y ago
        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.
  - sgift 7y ago
    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.
- travisoneill1 7y ago
  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.
Robotbeat 7y ago
So why would any private company fund such research?
- ryandrake 7y ago
  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?
  - Permit 7y ago
    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.
    - ryandrake 7y ago
      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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      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.
- runako 7y ago
  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.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

wongarsu 7y ago

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