The Admiral Hook wrote:
Hey everyone! This is something that's been rolling around in my head for a while now and I can't find enough info on my own so I'm coming to you...
Would it be conceivable during the Carter administration of the late 1970's that in order to earn some income for NASA (and perhaps for a stagflated U.S. as a whole,) for the U.S. government to arrange some sort of sale of all or most of our surplus, damaged, experimental, obsolete, incomplete, or otherwise 'useless' space equipment to other nations' space agencies?
Let me start by saying Carter "selling" off NASA equipment etc is about as likely as his canceling the Shuttle was, (
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...space-shuttle-die.396883/page-8#post-15411512) as in about zero. He wasn't stupid. The Shuttle was not to his liking, (he saw more utility from unmanned rather than manned space flight) but it was clear there was a sentiment in the public as well as Congress for keeping "NASA" going.
As for "selling off" obsolete, surplus and "extraneous" equipment that is already a "thing" and has been for a LOoooooong time
The main agency is the currently the "Defense Reutilization Marketing" Agency but it handles and works with the "General Services Administration" for most government agency sales.
The problem with NASA "selling" off equipment is most of the supposed "surplus" etc equipment isn't saleable due to various factors nor is it worth as much as you might think. There is also a "historical" factor which by-law requires NASA to at least attempt to donate a lot of equipment from "historic" programs to anyone who wants them. Then there is the security and classification issues which are attached to many items. Frankly NASA just doesn't have as much saleable surplus as you'd think. The military had/has vast amounts more and what NASA does have it would be questionable if it would have any use for anyone beyond scrap. (Can't pull up the list currently)
In order of some of the stuff you do mention:
1) Rockets, No as NASA did not 'own' any those were either contractor or military and NASA only ordered a certain amount. Those that are 'left over' area either testing models of stored for possible transfer museums or displays or retained and sold for scrap by the government. The only ones that can legally 'sell' them are the companies that build them and NASA and the government are specifically forbidden from selling in 'competition' to the industry.
2) landers, What landers? LEMs? Museums or displays, no one else had the capability to use them. Non-built or flown landers? Government property and sellable as scrap since they probably aren't even assembled or tested. Again the ability to use them is limited to almost none-existent so sale AS a lander is doubtful.
3) satellites, Same as the "landers" any NASA had would be left overs from a past program and of little use and dubious shape
4) test equipment, Tons of it per year just like every government agency. Thing is even by the 80s the stuff that's being 'sold' is from the late 60s and worth very little compared to its original price AND quite obsolete as well.
5) plans for unused programs, etc. are not "sellable" as they are mostly public domain. Further any that are not are of dubious value as they are specifically plans for programs for NASA and assume everything from that point which makes them relatilvy useless to anyone else
The idea could be that the surplus could be sold to other agencies or to a proposed international cooperative space agency for a bargain, with perhaps a deal to renegotiate a potential buy back after a set number of years for shared research and display in museums.
Note that NASA does not, (and in fact no government agency can) "sell" assets to museums they MUST be donated and are technically always "on loan" and available for NASA to access and have returned. Again the "utility" of any "surplus" assets is questionable especially for a specialty agency such as NASA. Research and data sharing is already existing and as per "planning" cannot be 'sold' legally as it is a public trust asset.
While it's possible that it could be 'transferred' to a cooperative "international" agency such an organization didn't exist at the time and the actual frame work of such a transfer would not likely involve actually 'funds' transfers but NASA 'donations' of equipment and hardware. And depending on the organization it is again questionable what utility such a transfer would be.
This would be perfectly in line with the Carter years' characteristic lack of interest in space; and it may also have the effect of providing quick income for NASA for the upcoming STS years, with any leftover funds going to help with the failing American economy.
Eh actually no, it's not 'in-line' as the "Carter" years "lack of interest" was a government wide thing where neither Congress nor anyone else was willing to build back financing for NASA from previous years cut-backs. Several Libertarian politicians of the time period, (Rand Paul comes to mind) ran on platform plank of "selling" the majority of NASA assets to "private enterprise" as a way of reducing government spending but there was no interest from the private sector for the rather obvious reason the only ones buying the services NASA used was in fact NASA.
If an international cooperative space agency is formed to actually buy and use this surplus material it could be easily affordable by them, as well as having the added benefit of being actually used in the late seventies and into the eighties and beyond.
As I noted I can't see the 'list' cited but I'd be surprised if it actually contains anything useful for such an agency unless they are able and can afford to basically 'repeat' or keep the Apollo program running. It should be noted that most of the 'surplus' was in fact equipment and hardware being replaced and upgraded from Apollo to Shuttle standards and most of which was pretty worn out and damaged from decades of hard use.
It seems like too good of an idea to not have actually ever been considered. Does anyone know if it was? And if not, why on earth not?
I'm not sure why anyone would think it was a 'good' idea in the first place as it's mostly what IS being done with the "surplus" Apollo and early program materials that are not of historic value. There's not really that much 'money' in such an idea as you're getting hundreds of thousands if not some millions for 'scrap' prices but at the same time are spending hundreds of millions on Shuttle program upgrades and infrastructure. And as noted a majority of the suggested items to "sell" are not in fact sellable. Transferring to a cooperative space agency would gain nothing of monetary value thought he PR might be nice but again the utility is questionable.
Is this at all plausible?
For what you are wanting to get out of it, probably not. There is also the fact that is noted there would be political hay to be made from where such technology transfers would end up combined with the very real possibility that Congress would use such transfers as an excuse to cut the NASA budget even more.
As a bonus question:
Was there ever a proposal for an international cooperative space agency in those years like the one I've suggested here? Maybe a cooperation between the British and European Space Agencies, China, Saudi Arabia, Japan, etc?
The British are and have been a part of the ESA from the start though the actual 'level' of commitment has varied greatly. Due to the "ties" of China and the USSR there was never any cooperative suggestions outside of working with them and Japan's space agency has always worked closely with the US. A 'cooperative' Middle East space agency has always been seen, (probably rightly) as nothing but a cover for ICBM development and while Libya did try and entice "cooperative" development of the OTRAG modular launch vehicle the basic deal was "you pay us, we develop it but you can't watch us do so" so no one took them up on the offer. There were attempts to organize a pan-South American space program but national differences have stymied that effort.
Interestingly enough the UN has always had implied that it could organize an 'international' space program but has no mechanism in place to actually do so. This is 'interesting' because according to the 1979 "Moon and other Planetary bodies" treaty, (of which no space going nation is a signatory btw) the UN was specifically tasked with and required to both develop and organize such a body to "regulate and gather monies and funding from any signatory nation's public and private industry which generated any "profit" for the utilization of space" but have never done so. The main problem is while the UN is set up to organize and run bureaucratic organizations any that actually have to organize and mobilize people and hardware are specifically supposed to be organized and assembled from member nations 'capable of contribution' which in this case would pretty much have been NASA and the USSR space program directly. We, (those two) weren't 'playing nice' as it was at that time I doubt short of a global catastrophe, (and maybe not then) would have gotten that idea off the ground.
@overoceans
I hadn't even really thought of that, good call. In the TL I'm working on there's something of a renewed 'space fever' in the late seventies that trickles up to representatives from both parties. An even less popular Carter decides to get creative in an attempt to save his legacy, boost his poll numbers, and please everybody. Obviously, that's not how it works out exactly, but that's the idea.
Was a near-miss with Solar Power Satellites and Space Colonies so you could maybe find a nice lever to push it into an actual "thing" but speaking from being there 1977 was a bit early and even by the early 80s it had already "flashed" and gone for the most part.
Unfortunately our PODs are too different for me to be overly inspired by what you've done or tweak it for my own needs (not that I would
) My POD is 1977.
Actually even with a new 'fever' a big requirement is having a viable way to access space which CAN mean the Shuttle if you work it right, (see above posted thread) and a renewal of US-Soviet rivalry but the POD is tough. I just don't see the 'garage sale' doing anything but damping the fever though.
Randy
