Slashdot Mirror
NASA Considers Privatizing Space Shuttles
panopticon was among the many who submitted a BBC story talking about NASA considering privatizing the space shuttles as a cost saving measure since those pesky shuttles cost $400M every time we throw one up into orbit. The article really doesn't say much beyond that.
If you don't wanna pay for it, find someone else who will. Hey, they did it with HMOs, and look how well that worked out...
Just like putting the UK and Dutch railways into private hands... now THAT was a good idea ;-)
For all non-europeans here (quite a bit) this lead to the most HORRIBLE service ever.
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity
...Not this guy. Personally Im holding my wallet until the firesale on public buildings. The Statue of Liberty, Washington Monument and GoldenGate bridge... now thats a good investment. With the right re-naming, cross-marketing, and brand management strategy these are sure fire money makers!
"The SubtleNuance Statue Of Plutocracy"... A Monument to Capitalism and Entrepreneurial Spirit.®© Now thats a sure winner. God Bless America(TM)!
How did it ever get to the point where one of our greatest and proudest institutions needs to privitize one of their greatest resources in order to keep going? Americans everywhere should be ashamed at this rape of our space program, once the envy of the world.
No other country in the world comes close to the US in terms of economic might, and yet it is near-third-world nations like China that are now expanding their space programs as we are selling off ours. Hell, they're even talking about putting men on the moon, something we did once and then got bored with. As a nation we have the attention span of a four year-old child, and about as much forward-thinking. We'd much rather forget about the future (and everything else) and concentrate on our televisions and big honking SUVs, despite the fact that our initial lead in the space race could have been leveraged into an unassailable one.
No, this is just another symptom of the long, slow decline of the US into a narcissistic corporate paradise as the rest of the world forges on ahead of us into the future. It seems the only people here with any kind of enthusiasm are the ones that want to control your lives; everyone would rather let them get on with and have removed the intolerable burden of decision making.
Next you know we'll be seeing :
Kellog's US Navy
MSArmy
Verizon Air Force
Kotex US Marines
(And, no, I have nothing against any armed forces. Kotex Marines just sounded funnier than any other.)
If I remember correctly, NASA tried to find a buyer for the Shuttles in the 1980s....
The reason no one bought them then, and the reason no one will buy them now, is the horrid expense of launching & reusing them - for example, on return to Earth, the Space Shuttle Main Engines are pulled, shipped to California, rebuilt to spec, and tested for ~75% of their design lifetime - any deviation during this test period results in the engine being scrapped. The Shuttle is an old design, and it wasn't efficient when it was new. Or consider the Solid Rocket Boosters, which actually cost more to retrieve and reuse than disposable boosters would.
The BBC quotes a figure of US$400 million, but the total development cost of the Shuttle program is *much* higher - some figures I've seen give a total cost per launch of over US$1.5 billion.
I think the solution to bringing down launch costs is to "open" the space program - let private companies build new launch vehicles, and have NASA test and certify them. This would allow NASA to perform more basic research, much like its predecessor the National Advisory Commitee for Aeronautics did from 1915 to 1958. This research, in turn, would lead to a new generation of launch vehicles.
I'm not a rabid NASA-hater like some out there, but I do think the agency has too much to do, with too many people, and too small of a budget.
---------------
Vpered na Mars!
Take a look at the 50+ generation. They had the moon in their grasp and they turned their back.
How many experimental craft have been 'scrapped' for 'budget cuts'- the government is a big, slow, uninteresting beast that plows over ideas. Whatever happeend to the dream of SSTO (single stage to orbit)?
Throw 'market share' and a chance for profit in, then you have some businesses interested. Contractors don't deliver on time? Dock them. Don't coddle them.
The moon was ours once... now every time I step outside at night and look up I see another example of failure.
Venimus, vidimus, fugimus
This is not really new. United Space Alliance, the LLC bastard child
of Boeing and Lockheed Martin has approached NASA before about buying
or leasing a shuttle. I believe USA was particularly interested in
Columbia because it has the lightest schedule during certain phases of
Space Station construction. Outgoing NASA agency head Dan Goldin was
reported to be all in favor of going forward, but the center director
at JSC, one George Abbey Sr., was opposed and blocked the deal.
The new emphasis on privatizing the program is a push by the new Bush
administration, and was a bit of a surprise to many at USA. "Out of
the blue" is how it was described to me. However, USA does not expect
much to come of the new push anytime soon because three key positions
at NASA are now vacant: Abbey has retired at JSC, Goldin is on his way
out, and NASA Office of Space Flight assistant administrator Joe
Rothenberg has announced his retirement. USA execs are NOT actively
pursuing privatization discussions with NASA, and cannot realistically
do so until these positions are filled.
In other words, don't look for a privately owned or operated shuttle
any time soon.
Anyone who read Richard Feynman's report on the Challenger explosion knows the Shuttle design process was flawed from the beginning. Exhaustive testing of material tolerances and other bottom-up procedures used in modern aircraft design were ignored in the Shuttle design process.
It costs so much for every flight because they basically have to rebuild the engine after every run. Parts that were not designed to wear fall apart or develop stress fractures in a single run.
I would support privatization 100% if they would give Boeing or Lockheed a contract to redesign the shuttle based on what we have learned from the current design and its flaws. NASA bureaucratic BS was responsible for allowing many of those flaws to exist. Feynman asked, "Do NASA managers even TALK to the engineers they're managing?" Privatization of maintaining the existing fleet wouldn't save nearly as much money as a new design would.
include $sig;
1;
In case you "could care less" about this, I would be quick to remind you that its your tax money (if you're indeed a US citizen) and this could potentially save quite a bit of it.
I thought the point is that it isn't our tax money. Instead, the launches will be privatized and the companies who use the services to lauch satellites etc will have to pay the full price. They will then take the risks involved in choosing one bidder over another, and the private organizations will come up with novel ways of increasing their payload/cost efficiency in oreder to maximize their profits or compete effectivly.
I'm not 100% certain that this is a good approach, however.It very difficult for me to understand the economic game plan of the current executive in this country. Subsidizing launches is good for the economy in the way that lower interest rates and tax cuts are good for the economy. It seems like they are pulling with one hand while pushing with the other. Then there is just the factor that spinning off a new industry while the economy is receeding just doesn't seem smart to me. If these were boom times, then I'd be all for it.
-no broken link
The more important step is to keep NASA from screwing up the next generation of space launch vehicles. Remember, the Space Shuttle was supposed to be cheaper than conventional rockets, but thanks largely to NASA it wound up being more like an order of magnitude more expensive.
I believe it is crucial for the US to move our space launch development from a beaurocratic process to a market-based process. I feel it will lower the cost of launch, and provide impetus to try alternative approaches that have been ignored by NASA.
I'd treat space launch capability like a utility. Just as the government must buy the electricity that people generate back into the power grid, I'd mandate that the government must buy a certain number of flights from all qualified vendors within a certain time frame after they come on line.
Specifically:
Yes, if enough companies came forward and built working launch systems it might cost more than, for instance, the two billion NASA has spent on X-33. But we'd have many times more working launch systems! As X-33 so amply proved, we cannot expect a beaurocratic approach to give us even one working next-gen system for the same amount of cash.
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
Please follow this chain of logic carefully... I spent a lot of neurons trying to fit this into my brain.
1 NASA finds shuttles expensive to maintain.
2 They find it so expensive because shuttles expend $400M of non-recoverable fuel, components and morons per flight.
3 NASA might want invest in a project with higher construction costs but lower maintenance costs.
4 BUT NASA has canned the X-33 and X-34 programs.
5 This means NASA is NOT interested in a project with higher construction costs but lower mainenance costs.
Right. Incidentally, since NASA is not interested in space flight anymore (it seems), Bruce Willis is not going to save us when the big one hits. That means the Empire State Building will very soon be hit by a meteor. Poor NYC.
These days Lockheed handles most of the service & maintainance contracts on NASA facilities with NASA oversight. Turnaround time remains months and flights are steadily being reduced due to budget constraints. Low cost has also not been realized, certianly not within an order of magnitude of the original predictions.
Of course the STS fleet remains an experimental one. These are the first generation designs developed in the 1970's with only upgraded subsystems since then. The logical next step of a second generation applying the lessons learned isn't even being discussed much less implelemented leaving the the aging (though refurbished) four orbiters the US's only manned spaceflight capability.
Statistically more accidents must be anticipated reducing the program 25% each time. With R&D not even begun in an organized fashion a replacement generation is itself at least a decade off even if fast-tracked. I fear it is not a promise of a bright future the US sees but a slowly dwindling legacy.
Indeed NASA just released a report calling for reducing staffing & facilities on the ISS (angering it's internationial "partners" who weren't even given copies of the report in advance of the press conference in spite of their own considerable contributions to the project.)
Elsewhere the USSR is actively looking for any partners with which to continue it's own program, the ESA has it's own launcher and program along with involvement in the ISS, the Japanese projects slowly advance, and China is reportedly almost ready to launch it's first manned orbital mission and has published its goal of going to the moon.
Like so many other areas of endeavor the US seems to pioneer then not follow up on it's advances. With realistic possibilities of power generation and manufacturing now becoming a possibility it seems the US is content to allow its manned spaceflight programs slowly wind down.
-- Michael
ps Many could argue that outsourcing STS operations would free up NASA funds and personel for producing a follow-up program. Were this the plan this would all be a good thing but no such intentions have been announced nor does there appear any support for such.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Of these projects, only Kistler is still standing.
Meanwhile, the joint TRW / LMT / Alenia "AstroLink" project has quietly died. This project was to bring advanced broadband technologies into reality, building a constellation of communications satellites. The decision to terminate this project must be seen as an entirely rational one, in light of falling prices in global telecom capacity.
NASA's Space Shuttle, contrary to public opinion, is not the reason that access to space is expensive. In fact, the Shuttle is not even a market consideration because no commercial entity has the slightest bit of interest in launching payloads on Shuttle.
I'm not sure what will be accomplished by spinning Shuttle off to private enterprise. Here are some hypotheses:
It's probably the right economic decision. NASA cannot hope to make progress on affordable access to space until they can establish a firewall against that drain of money and talent. It is my hope that NASA's space research programs will turn away from operations (missions) and will start research on basic technologies such as materials, propulsion, rail launchers, etc for 'affordable' access to space. Just as NACA's airfoil research laid the foundation for a vibrant and competitive aircraft industry in the 1930's, NASA should develop the foundations of a vibrant and commercially competitive launch industry.
However, I fear for the Shuttle Astronauts. Although NASA's safety record has been good under Goldin, the Shuttle program is already stretched too thin on safety and maintenance. It's an amazing vehicle which requires a standing army to launch it safely.
If you're interested in NASA, NASAwatch should by your first port of call. They tend to get all the leaks etc. way before the rest of them.
This one was noted on it back in September:
Word has it that Ron Dittemore, Space Shuttle Program Manager at JSC, will be holding an all-hands meeting today to discuss "shuttle commercialization".
According to NASA sources, Dittemore will be discussing an NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) concept that has been developed that would operate the Space Shuttle program. This concept has been under development for the last 9 months. Dittemore will reportedly pitch this concept as being seamless as far as civil servants are concerned with equivalent benefits, significant sign-up bonuses, and guaranteed job security. Dittemore has reportedly expressed personal interest in heading this new organization.
Behind the scenes there is little interest among Dittemore's crowd in actually saving the government money. Rather, this is simply seen as a way to lower the number of federal employees involved in America's civil space program.
Update: Note from someone@jsc.nasa.gov:
"Mr. Dittemore spoke about a "concept" where a private company would run the Space Shuttle Program. It was not commercialization, but "privatization". It has nothing to do with saving money. It will probably cost the government more money. He said it was in the interest of safety.
Since NASA cannot hire new people and grow them to be managers/engineers, there is no one to run the program safely in the future. That is true since most of the shuttle program folks came from MOD which is mostly all contractors now. This "concept" will work only if all the right people
with the right job skills needed to run the program safely, accept the offer to move over. Highly unlikely. We are talking about mission operations, flight design, flight directors, astronauts, program/project managers, ground operations, aircraft operations, launch operations, etc. Only the civil servants in the Engineering Directorates appear to be spared from this excercise in futility. He said it would happen in 2 years. That's unbelievable, the way the government works!"
Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, ybt bss abj. Tb bhgfvqr. Syl n xvgr.