Slashdot Mirror

That'll be why Challenger and Columbia are in pieces rather than a museum.

Yes, um, about that... I'm sorry, what were you saying?

If SpaceX delivers successfully on its manned spaceflight capability, I don't think anyone who actually cares about US manned spaceflight will be disappointed.

The fact that spaceflight has matured to the point that a private enterprise like SpaceX can now conduct this level of mission is a wonderful thing, but that doesn't obviate the need for government-supported and -operated space capabilities. The private sector isn't the only solution. They can apply what we've learned but do not have the same motivations of government space programs, which have resulted in nearly immeasurable advances and payoffs much closer to home.

The government acquisition and contracting system is far from perfect, but NASA, United Space Alliance, and United Launch Alliance are no slouches. ULA has success after success and knows how to reliably get research and military payloads to space. The fact that SpaceX is now in the mix is only a good thing. During this morning's press conference everyone involved from NASA to SpaceX was all smiles.

And by ULA, you obviously meant USA... right? :)

It already has been outsourced : http://www.unitedspacealliance.com/

Boeing and Lockheed operate the shuttle too.

A cursory glance turned up these

http://countdown.ksc.nasa.gov/elv/public/
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/ksclive/kscv0 9.html
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/ksclive/kscv0 3.html
java, not quite streaming.

But since you got real player installed you might enjoy this site.

http://www.unitedspacealliance.com/live/archive/
or http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/

All of these (and more, like European Space Broadcasts) are listed at:
http://www.hobbyspace.com/SpaceCasts/#NASATV

Thanks for asking though, now I got whole set of new bookmarks for launch day. If I don't go to the beach that is.

Orbiter landings at the Kennedy Space Center are made on one of the largest runways in the world. The runway is located 3.2 km (2 miles) northwest of the Vehicle Assembly Building and is 4,572 meters (15,000ft) long and 91.4 meters (300ft) wide - about as wide as the length of a football field. It has 305 meters (1000ft) of paved overruns at each end and the paving thickness is 40.6cm (15 inches) at the center. ( http://www.unitedspacealliance.com/tour/new/slf1.h tm)

http://www.unitedspacealliance.com/

USA [as in the company, not the country] has been running NASA ops for about 10 years now per a large contract and having won the bid.

There are currently relatively few 'non-contractor' people working at NASA; the sheer majority are contractors.

Granted, the current NASA/USA arrangement is a shell game of sorts; the government still pays out the USD $12B+ budget and the same people still do it (albeit with checks signed by someone else).

The new proposal, in theory, might see the government moving to reduce payout and let private industry assume the risk and expense?

We just wonder when private industry will put Nasa out of the game.

Actually, at this point even NASA launches are handled by private enterprise. You may want to read up about United Space Alliance. Commercial launches tend to be managed by the launch vehicle contractor, although the actual pad management and launch operations may be run by the Air Force in some cases (launches from the Cape or Vandenberg. However, companies like Sea Launch do the whole launch themselves without NASA or Air Force involvement.

The military launches really should be handled by the military.

The military does handle military launches. And everything else. The US Air Force' 45th Space Wing runs Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), which handles all (military, civil, and commercial) of the launches out of the Cape, aside from NASA manned launches (see here for more). The USAF also operates Vandenberg Air Force Base on the California coast, which handles launches into polar orbits.

First off, from a practical matter of the US DoD, this discussion is irrelevant. The military is so dependent on civilians and outside contractors for their software development needs that any requirement to "keep it inside" would be crippling. If they can't pass it back and forth to MITRE and TRW, then they may as well not have it.

They have a number of attorneys in their organization. When it comes to interpreting the GPL, I'll take their word over yours.

I might too, if there was any indication that an attorney had actually written that FAQ. Unfortunately, I don't see a name like "Eben Moglen" signed to the bottom of it.

I also might grant that answer some credibility if it actually tried to explain the reasoning behind its position, instead of just tossing it out there unsupported.

If they're part of the organization, they're not contractors. That's the definition of "contractor."

No it isn't. But the definition of "organization" is the one that actually matters here. And the word "organization" has a very broad meaning. Almost any group of people qualifies as an organization. For example, can you deny that the previously mentioned
Unitied Space Alliance is an organization? They sure act organized! But look at the membership: all contractors, who keep wandering off-site and back.

I should note that corporations are just one kind of organization. The legal boundary to becoming a corporation is higher than for forming an organization, but it's easily met with a few $100 in fees. Other kinds of organizations include schools, clubs, associations, and even countries.

However, if you give them a copy to take off your site and back to their site, that's a distribution.

If you give them a copy at all, for any reason, and they carry it 2 meters away, that's distribution.

But let's suppose for a minute that you were right; that one programmer in an organization can modify a GPL program for use by all the other members, and that the leader of the group can order them not to share it with outsiders.

If that were true, then a loophole would be created sufficient to deprive the GPL of all its strength. A company wishing to sell a modified GPL program with typical for-profit licensing could simply require prospective customers to join a club before making a purchase. From then on, they're members of an organization, so they can be sent binary software with no right to request the source code.

"Distribution for internal use only" would be a fatal loophole in the GPL- if it actually worked.

Check my profile.

C++ skills, eh? I hope you put those for use in your job... it'll save taxpayer money from high-priced defense contractors who do most DoD coding.

You know, Slashdot would be a better place if people would bother to do a bit of research before spouting off about stuff that they obviously have no clue about.

I have devoted more that 28 hours to researching this precise subject. But I don't have time to repost all of that for you here.

From the GPL FAQ:

Sorry, the GPL FAQ is not the GPL. It has no legal validity- the text of the GPL is all that matters. Nor does a FAQ have the authority to redefine existing terms like "distribute". That particular FAQ is just full of holes.

Just to point out one of the most blatantly wrong things about that FAQ: It's actually self-contradictory. In the first sentence, it says that using multiple copies within an organization is just fine. But the last sentence states "providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution"

So what if the off-site contractors are part of the organization? Can they use it, or can't they? Remember that it is possible for off-site contractors to be part of an organization! (For example, the United Space Alliance is an organization with multiple sites, and 100% of its members are contractors- and from different corporations)

And this effectively neuters your other argument

My simplest argument is that I'm part of the DoD, and know the rules around here. But I can't really prove that to you.

The space shuttle a product of "USA", United Space Alliance, which is a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

Actually, all of our (American) unmanned rockets are launched on Lockheed and Boeing vehicles. The government owns the launch sites but I seem to recall recently that even that has changed with one of the pads at KSC being purchased by someone. The space shuttle is maintained by a Boeing/Lockheed conglomerate under contract with NASA. And many of our space probes are built at least jointly in cooperation with industry. NASA is the beurocracy (don't mean that negatively) who pays for and manages these programs.

Much of Shuttle operations are already privatized and run by the United Space Alliance. USA is a joint venture by Lockheed and Boeing. They save costs in three main ways: 1) USA pays less than NASA... and NASA already pays much lower than the rest of the Aerospace industry (at least they did when I was job hunting last year). 2) USA cuts the deadwood. Since NASA employees are civil servants they pretty much have their jobs for life and NASA employs lots of people who don't really contribute to a project but have to be paid anyway. 3) USA can hire people when there's lots of work and fire them when the work load drops. NASA hires people and keeps them so its difficult to hire more people when the work load jumps.

From what I've heard, USA does a good job as most of their people are highly motivated by manned space flight.. and I guess the salary doesn't look that small when you work with the Russian controllers who sometimes don't even get paid at all.

This is not to say that privatization is always a good thing. Lots and lots of government contractors do a worse job and end up costing more than what they replaced... many charge so much it verges on fraud.

For years, a private company called United Space Alliance has held the contract for space shuttle operations. USA is a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, the contractors responsible for constructing most of the space shuttle hardware.

We need to force NASA to start operating like a commercial entity, then change some legislation to allow commercial competition by companies somewhat smaller than LockMart/Boeing. The model NASA has been using of single-noncompeting subcontractor (like the guys that operate the shuttle - United Space Alliance) does not tend to reduce costs since the contractor always asks for more money, and there's no competition for the job. Of course, the reason they use these subcontractors is that they can claim they are "privatizing" space, and it looks good on paper. But reality is that they still have a stranglehold on space.

It costs $10,000 per pound to put stuff into orbit right now. As long as Space is held tightly by governments, it will stay that way, and you and I will never get there. Commercial competition and innovation is the only way to bring that cost down to somewhere a mere mortal could afford.

You should see the legislation on this issue. There's reams and reams of it. Launch contracts are locked up by NASA, the military, and a handful of big guys (LockMart/Boeing). There's NO WAY for a newcomer to get contracts and make any money, due to the way the government has fixed the market. (Look at the promising Beal Aerospace for an example -- now bankrupt) Any newcomer has to go through reams and reams of red tape, and buy a congressman and an FAA representative to get launch permits.

We have to accept that failure is an option and that we need commercial competition.

Die NASA, Die.

--Bob

I nominate Dr. Russ Turner.

He's qualified and one of the best leaders and visionaries I have ever had the chance to work with. He could take us to Mars with change to spare!

On another note, the group that I work in (Flight Design and Dynamics) may start looking into moving from our IBM/AIX platform to a Linux platform. Penguins in space! I guess that is a bit offtopic, but oh well.

It is estimated that if a private company owned a space shuttle, it would see profit within the first 18 months of operations. Missions would be launched at a rate of four missions a year.

So why hasn't anyone done this yet? Well, it is rumored that a certain shuttle operating company looked into this possiblity. They even had the funds neccessary to acquire a shuttle. Apparently all went awry because they failed to talk to the right people. When a few key people found they were bypassed, they decided to axe the attempt. Apparantly this is the real reason the CEO is no longer with the company.

Wigs
--Support better legislation for the privatization of space. Visit Pro Space today.

There it is people, right there. The meaning of life : Humans, as a whole, over time, should be advancing, learning more, exploring (boldy going where no man has gone before anyone?).

People who can't see any point in exploring space piss me off. It's like: it's always going to be up there, and you have no problem looking at the planets and stars every night and never trying to get there?

Considering human history, those people should be evolutionary glitches. I hope they are. It seems right now they're he majority in the US.

Anyway, I'm watching this right now, still no communication.

USA

(I had the link correct in the preview...)

RB

NASA use to do an amazing amount of stuff for the Human Space Flight program in house and did not farm activities out to contractors. More and more, private contractors are running the day to day operations of the HSF while NASA itself focuses more on the science aspect of its mission.

If you want to see the main contractor that runs the HSF, go here