A new report asks about the "viability" of the privatization plan for the space station

A new report from the Inspector General of the Space Agency concludes that NASA has no easy choices with regards to the future of the International Space Station massive that rotates around 400 km above the Earth. The station, which has been continuously inhabited by humans for nearly two decades, is currently the only space destination for astronauts and cosmonauts.

Recently, the White House announced that it wanted to end the direct funding of NASA. station in the year 2025 and transfer operations to the private sector. The senior senators who oversee NASA's activities opposed this idea in a bipartisan manner, saying that the station should be funded until 2028 to carry out its scientific research mission. This extension would also develop and test new technologies needed for deep space exploration by humans – such as toilets that do not break every six months.

In the report released Monday, NASA's Inspector General Paul Martin's choices have significant drawbacks. "Each of the transition or withdrawal options of the ISS presents challenges and costs associated with NASA," the report says.

Option 1: Privatize the station

NASA spent more than $ 100 billion Building the station with international partners in Russia, Europe, Canada and Japan during the 2000s. NASA spends now $ 3 billion to $ 4 billion a year to maintain the station, including an ongoing maintenance contract with Boeing and commercial cargo and crew services. This represents about half of NASA's total budget for human exploration activities

The White House would like to surrender the station to a private entity in 2025, NASA assuming the status of "tenant" in low Earth orbit then spend those billions of extra dollars to give his fictional plans to send humans on the Moon and Mars somewhere in the real world. However, since the transition proposal was made, it has not been clear whether a private entity could operate the station profitably. The Inspector General also seems alarmed about this

"Based on our audit work, we question the viability of NASA's plans," says the report. "Specifically, we wonder if there is a sufficient business case that private companies will be able to develop a stand-alone, for-profit business independent of significant federal funding, particularly where it is unlikely that one or more private entities In summary, the market beyond existing microgravity research – which could include space tourism, satellite maintenance, the manufacture of goods and research and the development – simply does not exist yet. . The claims that such markets will exist in six years are "too optimistic," says the report. And without the station after 2024, the report notes that NASA would not complete a number of health development projects and astronaut technology, including environmental control systems and of Life Support

Option 2: Fly through the 2020s The station's main contractor, Boeing, recently certified that the main components of the lab in orbit will remain in good working order up to # 39 on that date. This would give NASA and its university partners the certainty they need for long-term missions, and allow the space agency to prove the technology it needs to send humans deeper into the world. space

. a continued spending of $ 3 to $ 4 billion a year, plus additional delays of a human return to the moon or possible trips to Mars in a few decades

"We found that, assuming that the funding of NASA's human exploration program The continuation of ISS funding until 2028 will require either increased funding in the 2020s to develop the exploration systems needed to the Martian missions, is the obligation for the Agency to postpone the schedule of its plans for Martian exploration, "the report continues. The station could also curb nascent efforts by companies like Bigelow and Axiom to develop smaller, less expensive private stations in low Earth orbit.

The bottom line is that one of the most consistent areas of disagreement between the Trump White House and Congress concerns the future of the International Space Station. From the point of view of advancing human activity in the last frontier, the position of one or the other party does not seem to be a surefire winner right now.