Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Seeks Help Carrying Cargo Into Space

Posted by samzenpus on from the that's-a-lot-of-stamps dept.

Dotnaught writes "NASA wants to outsource space missions to the private sector. The government space agency on Tuesday announced the establishment of the Commercial Crew/Cargo Project Office at the Johnson Space Center as part of the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate. The objective is to "create a market environment in which commercial space transportation services are available to Government and private sector customers." Proposals are due February 10, 2006."

120 comments

  1. In case article gets /.'ed . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    NASA seeks help from private rocketeers
    Entrepreneurs could take over job of sending cargo and crew into orbit

    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - With the space shuttles due to retire, NASA is looking for private companies interested in taking over the potentially lucrative business of flying cargo and crew to the international space station.

    The U.S. space agency issued a long-awaited announcement Tuesday for firms interested in handling delivery services now provided by the three shuttles, which are due to stop flying by 2010.

    "Certainly this is an opportunity for the new space companies," said Jim Banke, head of Florida operations for The Space Foundation, an industry trade association. "They've been lobbying NASA hard for something like this for years."

    NASA hopes to supplement, and eventually replace, crew and cargo flights to the space station that had been planned for the shuttle fleet. The agency also may have to pare down the number of shuttle flights to the station even before they retire to pay for development of a new spacecraft known as the Crew Exploration Vehicle.

    In addition to flying to the station if no commercial providers are available, the Crew Exploration Vehicle is being designed to carry astronauts to the moon.

    "We're excited about this opportunity," said Larry Williams, who handles international and government affairs for Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX. The California-based is planning its debut rocket launch from Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific this month.

    SpaceX was founded and funded by Internet entrepreneur Elon Musk, who sold his online payment services firm PayPal to eBay for $1.5 billion.

    Musk is developing a series of launchers, called the Falcon, which, if successful, could significantly undercut the price routinely paid to aerospace giants Lockheed Martin Corp. and Boeing Co., to send payloads into orbit.

    Other start-up firms that have expressed interest in NASA's space station business include t/Space, SpaceDev, Constellation Services International, AirLaunch LLC, SpaceHab, Andrews Space, Rocketplane Ltd., Taco Bell, Universal Space Lines and Bigelow Aerospace, according to an Excel spreadsheet on NASA's procurement Web site.

    Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which manufacture and sell the Delta and Atlas expendable launch vehicles, have kept any aspirations of becoming NASA's space station truckers under wraps.

    "As long as it's a level playing field, we're open to compete with them any time and anywhere," said SpaceX's Williams.

    Companies have until Feb. 10 to submit proposals to NASA for its transport services. The agency expects to award one or more contracts in May. NASA has allotted $500 million to pay for the initial phases of the program through 2010.

    1. Re:In case article gets /.'ed . . . by Fyre2012 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      dude it's msn.com
      good luck /.ing that

      --
      This is not the greatest .sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
    2. Re:In case article gets /.'ed . . . by PTK502 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Other start-up firms that have expressed interest in NASA's space station business include t/Space, SpaceDev, Constellation Services International, AirLaunch LLC, SpaceHab, Andrews Space, Rocketplane Ltd., TACO BELL, Universal Space Lines and Bigelow Aerospace, according to an Excel spreadsheet on NASA's procurement Web site. Did anyone miss this ? Taco Bell wants to start sending stuff into orbit? I guess they plan on storing the Gas from there customers to propel there rockets into low and high orbit?

    3. Re:In case article gets /.'ed . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent is obviously a retard/troll/fat kid living in his mama's basement.

    4. Re:In case article gets /.'ed . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taco Bell - because that is what we need putting astronauts at risk - eating their food is worse enough. What's next, replace the tang? No thanks!

    5. Re:In case article gets /.'ed . . . by joecr · · Score: 1

      You didn't RTFA. I will quote the part of it of intrest to this thread now without adding Taco Bell or anything else for that matter.

      "Other start-up firms that have expressed interest in NASA's space station business include t/Space, SpaceDev, Constellation Services International, AirLaunch LLC, SpaceHab, Andrews Space, Rocketplane Ltd., Universal Space Lines and Bigelow Aerospace, according to an Excel spreadsheet on NASA's procurement Web site."

      See no Taco Bell. If you still don't belive me then just RTFA ok. I also downloaded the .xls file which has no references to Taco Bell either.

      I guess that means you can't trust an "Anonymous Coward" when they "quote" an article as they neither gain or lose karma.

      I vote that this entire thread should be modded to funny as I think the AC was playing a joke on you.

  2. Of course.... by cmowire · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...here's the big question...

    NASA has a way of bowing to pressure where they will say, "Oh, sure, we'll open it up to ____" and then making sure it won't happen behind the scenes.

    For example, neither the Soyuz nor the Shuttle comply with the standards they've set for spacecraft-that-may-operate-near-the-ISS. They were grandfathered in.

    --
    Gentoo Sucks
    1. Re:Of course.... by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Informative

      NASA has a way of bowing to pressure where they will say, "Oh, sure, we'll open it up to ____" and then making sure it won't happen behind the scenes.

      Indeed. For some recent examples of this, just check out this posting from NASA Watch.

      One example: NASA Selects ATK to be Prime Contractor for First Stage of Next Generation Crew Launch Vehicle. Reader note from the page: "What is even more interesting is this was released during Thanksgiving week, with a due date of Dec. 2. How is anyone supposed to do the research required for even a minimal response in 7 working days? Somehow this doesn't seem fair or realistic." (It should also be mentioned that the solicitation was pretty much tailored so that only ATK could qualify.)

    2. Re:Of course.... by handsome+b · · Score: 1

      That wasn't a question.

      Sorry karma, I couldn't resist...

    3. Re:Of course.... by Wellspring · · Score: 1

      You know, I really had my hopes up there for a second.

      But then I read your post, and of course you're absolutely right. I remember how the shuttle people in NASA did everything they could to kill Delta Clipper. No doubt this will end up the same.

    4. Re:Of course.... by cmowire · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah.

      So the question was, "why won't this be the repeat of every previous time, given that there was even a proposal to build an extra shuttle owned by a commercial company that NASA found ways to quash".

      --
      Gentoo Sucks
  3. Isn't NASA by DrugCheese · · Score: 1

    already in the private sector?
    I know they recieve my taxes, maybe im ignorant, are they an association? or a department of government?

    --
    *DrugCheese rants*
    1. Re:Isn't NASA by MyNymWasTaken · · Score: 1

      National Air & Space Administration

      NASA website (notice the .gov)

      They are now, and always have been, a part of the US government.

    2. Re:Isn't NASA by gbobeck · · Score: 1

      If I remember my US Government class ( PLSC 101 for you Loyola University Chicago people...) NASA is a US Government Corporation. They are in the same catagory as the USPS.

      Of course, I may be wrong... I'm a computer scientist, not a political scientist.

      --
      Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
    3. Re:Isn't NASA by uberdave · · Score: 1

      Does this mean that they are legally prevented from running a for profit sub-business. I mean, if the ISS cargo runs are lucrative, why not do it themselves and funnel the profits into their coffers?

      --
      "I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
    4. Re:Isn't NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I remember my US Government class ( PLSC 101 for you Loyola University Chicago people...) NASA is a US Government Corporation. They are in the same catagory as the USPS.

      Of course, I may be wrong... I'm a computer scientist, not a political scientist.

      You are wrong. NASA is an agency of the Executive Branch of the U.S.A Government.

  4. Product Placement? by dch24 · · Score: 0
    Is this just product placement for SpaceX?
    "'We're excited about this opportunity,' said Larry Williams, who handles international and government affairs for Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX. The California-based is planning its debut rocket launch from Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific this month."

    Microsoft will take over space travel for us. I have ties to NASA and they don't have the funding to do it all (reuters) so people like Paul Allen will do it for us.

  5. This Is Something That SHOULD Be Outsourced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It was great we had NASA to jumpstart the space exploration field, and make the the USA the space superpower it is today, but now it's time that we turn it over the private sector. Private for-profit businesses can break the space doldrums we're in now.

    Right now, NASA has become too distracted with political and budget battles to really take space technology to the next level. We need to see what the USA's brilliant minds in the private industries can do to keep the USA the best space power there is.

    1. Re:This Is Something That SHOULD Be Outsourced by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While I agree with your sentiment, I can't say I agree with your take on private industries.

      One of the arguments for the Shuttle and Space Station is that somewhat circular argument where we need a Space Shuttle to build the space station and we need a space station so the shuttle has somewhere to go. If you accept that there is a reason for men to be in space, I would argue, we don't need a spacecraft for two week missions and a spacecraft for six-month missions and it's better to keep the space station and ditch the shuttle.

      The problem is that a big chunk of NASA's budget goes to supplying the space station and this is something that NASA needs to work on.

      To me, what NASA is doing is essentially punting here--and I'm not convinced it's a bad idea. The space shuttle is a great, awesome, wonderful vehicle. But it's kind of an expensive way to send people back-and-forth to the space station. Some senator used the SUV analogy which I think is apropos here--you don't need an SUV to pick up the groceries.

      Alot of the research and development of getting people back and forth to orbit has already been done. It's not a bad idea for NASA to get out of that business. After 40-some-odd years, I think the USA has proven that we can get people back and forth to orbit. There's still lots of things for people to do in orbit--which is what the space station is for. So if NASA can save money getting supplies and people up there by contracting it out to a third-party, I'm all for it.

      If some researcher needs to be in orbit for some research, they pay NASA x dollars for room and board on the station (appropriately subsidized by the American taxpayer--x may be zero). They then pay somebody else y dollars to get them up there and back.

      If anything, this gives NASA more money to devote to research and development of the next generation of space technology. I'm not as convinced as you that private industry would be the one to do this. At best, I could see private industry developing better rockets, etc. to get us up to orbit. But I'd count on NASA to come up with ways for me to actually live on the Moon, Mars, in orbit, etc.

    2. Re:This Is Something That SHOULD Be Outsourced by nasor · · Score: 1

      Private for-profit businesses will only become interested in space when it's possible to, you know, make a profit. That's not possible at the moment. If it were, companies would be doing it already.

    3. Re:This Is Something That SHOULD Be Outsourced by wass · · Score: 3, Interesting
      What are you talking about, NASA has been outsourcing projects and components to private industry since its inception. Eg, Grumman Aircraft and Boeing, along with many other companies, contributed to the Apollo programs. Perkin Elmer produced the infamously flawed Hubble Telescope mirror, etc.

      In fact, many of the problems on NASA missions are due to outsourced companies providing sub-par work, cutting corners, and over-billing NASA. In other words, they've grown fat and dependent on NASA's pork. For a current example, there are companies outsourced to build parts for one of the replacement cameras on Hubble that will hopefully get launched. I've heard 'horror' stories about the outsourced work. One company made filters that used an epoxy not rated for space's thermal or vacuum conditions, and the filters are basically non-functional. They want to charge NASA double the price to make another round of proper filters. Another company made some electronic parts that should have been built in a cleanroom but they used a sweatshop in Puerto Rico. There are pictures showing pictures of shirtless guys covered in sweat assembling these electronics when they hould be wearing bunnysuits in a cleanroom. Of course, working yield was less than 25%, and they refuse to produce more or give NASA a discount. And these stories are only within the past 5 years, it's probably been worse throughout history.

      The problem isn't with NASA, the problem is with NASA's bureaucracy demanding that certain tasks be outsourced when it could be far more efficient to produce in-house. NASA has amazing fabrication resources, but for various political reasons they give pork projects to industry. Now if NASA had to spend $100,000 to develop an op-amp that could be bought for $5, obviously that's a waste. But if they spend $10 Million to pay a company to develop new filters, when they could develop themselves in proper cleanrooms and with proper thermal-vac testing for only $5 Million, then it makes sense to keep it in-house.

      The other problem is that certain companies are greedy with these NASA 'pork' projects, and they will charge NASA more money for a project than they'd charge another business. Unfortunately NASA's bureaucracy makes them outsource such projects at ripoff prices, in order to add pork for the various Congressmen in an area.

      --

      make world, not war

    4. Re:This Is Something That SHOULD Be Outsourced by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Informative

      What are you talking about, NASA has been outsourcing projects and components to private industry since its inception.

      There's a significant between non-competitive cost-plus contracts and the new competitive commercial contracts which have just been proposed. With cost-plus contracts, it was actually in a company's interest to go over-budget, since it would result in greater budgets. Contract solicitations were also worded so that pretty much only a particular company could fit the requirements, so there wouldn't be any competition.

      The plans is for these newer contracts to be fixed-cost, with payments contingent on meeting pre-established milestones. I'm curious to see whether or not this new system will survive, as its success would cut back drastically on congressional pork.

    5. Re:This Is Something That SHOULD Be Outsourced by infinityxi · · Score: 1

      I can see it now. Orbiting Ad-Words in space. Contextual to the latitude and longitude of the target audience.

      --
      Turn based strategy game that runs over XMPP. Phalanx
    6. Re:This Is Something That SHOULD Be Outsourced by munpfazy · · Score: 1

      >If some researcher needs to be in orbit
      >for some research, they pay NASA x dollars
      >for room and board on the station
      >(appropriately subsidized by the American
      >taxpayer--x may be zero).

      In which case the researcher writes out a grant proposal to NASA/NSF/DOE and asks for money to be used in paying NASA for room and board? Doesn't seem particularly effective, except possibly as a way to force through manned spaceflight at the expense of other programs if funding is ever cut. (Asking non-US researchers to pay might work, although it isn't clear how much demand there would be for seats from nations that aren't already ISS partners.)

      On the other hand, if the ISS were forced to live off of money tied to specific research projects, funding agencies would pretty quickly realize how very little research there is that requires placing humans in low earth orbit for months. The cost of experiments that we've conducted in the recent decades are only remotely reasonable if you ignore the billions of dollars spent subsidizing the shuttle and station. As a way of killing off the ISS, it might work.

      That's not to say that I'm particularly opposed to the shuttle, the ISS, or manned spaceflight in general. But it is and for the forseable future will be a public works project rather than a scientific endeavor.

      That's a fine thing in itself, but it won't work as a for-profit enterprise. The only financially worthwhile thing you can do with humans in low earth orbit is to charge rich tourists to take them there. Given a choice between sending up some useless astronauts to hang about taking pictures of cool weightless stuff and sending up some useless right guys to hang about taking pictures of cool weightless stuff, I'd choose the former. At least the cool pictures will be public domain afterward.

    7. Re:This Is Something That SHOULD Be Outsourced by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      [i]The plans is for these newer contracts to be fixed-cost, with payments contingent on meeting pre-established milestones. I'm curious to see whether or not this new system will survive, as its success would cut back drastically on congressional pork.[/i]

      Note: I've received training on fed.gov contracting in the Air Force. While my field was computer aquisitions, the training was fairly generic, covering construction, equipment, and services such as busing the base's kids to school, as well as care of the grounds. They're called 'performance based contracts' at the time.

      If the contracts are written like I was trained, these companies won't get paid until the cargo is delivered to the station. As long as they arrive intact and on time, the fed.gov won't care whether they go up in one rocket or a dozen, or even shot out of a cannon. Old contracts would specify how the company was to do stuff. Obviously, this limits what cost saving measures can be accomplished. New contracts are supposed to specify what the goal is. They can also have conditions for marginal performance, or excellent performance warranting a bonus.

      Example:
      Old Style: Start Driving specified route(attached) with XX passanger diesel school bus, pick up kids along route, drop off at y time.
      New Style: For given area, kids are to be moved by sheltered heated vehicle to the school. Pickups are not to start before x time, and they are to be dropped off by y time. Missed pickups of more than 3 children/month results in fine of $, missed pickup of 10 or more more than twice a year is grounds for termination of contract.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    8. Re:This Is Something That SHOULD Be Outsourced by Luminary+Crush · · Score: 1

      All I can say is that this is the generalized state of outsourcing across all industries (there are exceptions, but..)

      Generally, outsourcing (these days) is done to save money. You have to ask yourself why that savings is possible. Having seen many 'outsourcing' projects come and go and come again, it's always the same story: the outsourcing company finds minimal compliance methods to satisfy the SLA, and the result are expectations well below what was formerly done in-house.

      Cost at the expense of quality - that's what outsourcing means these days. Why do you think "Made in China" generally means lower quality disposable junk? Why don't we outsource to Germany, known for fine engineering and manufacturing? Why don't we outsource our call centers to Sweeden? Well, because it's more expensive.

      There might have been a day when you outsourced a project because the singular talent to handle it was working in another company, but those days are mostly past. Now it's done for the balance sheets and bonuses of upper management (who generally have taken their golden parachute long before the reality of the outsourcing nightmare hits the fan).

      Maybe if the people who knew the operations were involved in writing the SLA the service/product wouldn't be sub-par, but then, who wants to train the guy who's taking your job? Plus, if the SLA actually met expectations and/or current in-house standards of quality, I doubt there would be much cost savings (where does it come from? How can you save money by inserting another management level and employing people with differing/conflicting company loyalties?)

      YMMV.

  6. Douglas Adams by jollyroger1210 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Step 1.Paint large "42" on side of shuttle step 2.Release the mice

    --
    Purple, because ice cream has no bones.
  7. Will this make NASA obsolete? by Jason1729 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If this happens, what purpose would Nasa serve?

    The funding Nasa gets for scientific works could be diverted to researching at universities directly who could then use the funding pay private space companies to run the experiments.

    1. Re:Will this make NASA obsolete? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If this happens, what purpose would Nasa serve?

      NASA was created to yank aeronautics and space research out of the hands of the military. It is (or rather, should be) an agency dedicated to research, not hauling cargo in orbit. Things like that are done better by the Russians, the ESA and just about any country with spare headless transcontinental missiles.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:Will this make NASA obsolete? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ideally, NASA will keep doing the big projects that are too expensive for individual universities (I doubt even Harvard has the money to build something like the Hubble on its own, and no grant is going to be big enough) and which don't have immediate profit potential for industry (in the very long run, there's a lot of money to be made by sending people Out There, but it will take decades, not quarters, to develop) while encouraging smaller, faster projects to be done by academia and industry. Basically NASA should be a trailblazer for missions no one else has the resources to do -- but which will hopefully, eventually, become routine.

      That's the idea, anyway. I want to believe that it will work out that way. But considering the way things have gone since the glory days of Apollo, my optimism is damn near gone.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:Will this make NASA obsolete? by vought · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If this happens, what purpose would Nasa serve?


      How about rulemaking and safety standards?

      The Department of Agriculture doesn't farm, and the FAA doesn't fly airplanes.

    4. Re:Will this make NASA obsolete? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not at all. Transportation between earth and space is a logistics issue. It maybe specialized, expensive and dangerous BUT at this point in time it is an engineering issue and not a very new issue at that. NASA has not demonstrated that it is making any great progress in this area. Whereas, for example, they are the forefront of satelite exploration. Frankly a lot of cutting edge science is performed at NASA, NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) etc... Most of this research never makes any headlines.

    5. Re:Will this make NASA obsolete? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      and the FCC doesn't communicate.

    6. Re:Will this make NASA obsolete? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the US Dept of Agriculture does farm, albiet not commercially. It's all part of the Agricultural Research Service (http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/site_main.htm?modeco de=12-00-00-00) They plant fields and fields of crops, and reasearch things like fertilizers and pesticides and growing techniques that are then transferred to commercial uses on real farms....

    7. Re:Will this make NASA obsolete? by vought · · Score: 1

      Actually, the US Dept of Agriculture does farm, albiet not commercially. It's all part of the Agricultural Research Service (http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/site_main.htm?modeco de=12-00-00-00 [usda.gov]) They plant fields and fields of crops, and reasearch things like fertilizers and pesticides and growing techniques that are then transferred to commercial uses on real farms....

      Actually, I was aware of this; the thrust of my comment was meant to communicate that the DoA and FAA aren't primarily involved in research through outlay. These agencies are primarily involved with regulatory oversight, and some people feel NASA should take the same role.

    8. Re:Will this make NASA obsolete? by rich_r · · Score: 1
      The Department of Agriculture doesn't farm, and the FAA doesn't fly airplanes.

      And charlie don't surf!

    9. Re:Will this make NASA obsolete? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> If this happens, what purpose would Nasa serve?

      > How about rulemaking and safety standards?

      > The Department of Agriculture doesn't farm, and the FAA doesn't fly airplanes.

      The FAA AST already has the job of rulemaking and safety standards for spaceflight.

  8. And not a moment too soon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    About bloody time! NASA should *NOT* be in the launch business!

    1. Re:And not a moment too soon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but would you trust your life and your cargo to some unknown, un-proven space craft?

  9. carrying cargo into space... by penguin-collective · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, they can easily outsource--I mean it isn't rocket science. Oh, wait.

    1. Re:carrying cargo into space... by quarkscat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Considering that the EM railgun is far closer to production than any space elevator, perhaps the DoD could release their research data on the railgun to private enterprise. I can see it now - a 10 MegaWatt nuclear reactor used to power railguns capable of delivering SST-sized (shuttle) payloads into LEO. Of course, this approach is unworkable for delivering living beings into space, due to initial G forces.

    2. Re:carrying cargo into space... by larkost · · Score: 1

      Actually, the studies were already done to show that it would be possible to use a chemical cannon to put people into orbit (without killing them... or even blacking them out). That would make a large railgun viable for passenger service.

    3. Re:carrying cargo into space... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Considering that the EM railgun is far closer to production than any space elevator, perhaps the DoD could release their research data on the railgun to private enterprise. I can see it now - a 10 MegaWatt nuclear reactor used to power railguns capable of delivering SST-sized (shuttle) payloads into LEO. Of course, this approach is unworkable for delivering living beings into space, due to initial G forces.
      Railguns are unworkable for unliving things too... It's not the G's that are the problem, but the tons of heatshielding needed to survive the ascent through the atmosphere.
  10. A good idea by ReformedExCon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    NASA has outlived its usefulness as an astronaut ferry operator. It's shown in the past few years that it is unable to reliably send astronauts into orbit or to even provide aid to the international space station.

    This is good.

    There are several large problems with having NASA in charge of space flight, and one of those is that it's the government tightly controlling who flies and who doesn't. If you aren't selected as an astronaut, you aren't going. Period. That means that it's just not feasible for the private sector to come up with NEO vehicles because NASA just won't allow it. No NEOVs, no rapid intercontinental travel, no business case.

    So government here ought to do what only it can do, finance good ideas. Get out of the business of trying to do this space travel stuff on their own and turn over that money to the private sector who will find ways of doing the same more cheaply and more economically and more safely than any government boondoggle could hope to imagine.

    --
    Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
  11. Key quote from TFA ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which manufacture and sell the Delta and Atlas expendable launch vehicles, have kept any aspirations of becoming NASA's space station truckers under wraps.

    "As long as it's a level playing field, we're open to compete with them any time and anywhere," said SpaceX's Williams.

    Level playing field. Any bets on that?

    </cynical>

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    1. Re:Key quote from TFA ... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2, Funny

      Level playing field. Any bets on that?

      That's right, it's hard to keep anything level in zero-G.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:Key quote from TFA ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      [snort]

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:Key quote from TFA ... by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Level playing field. Any bets on that?

      SpaceX is actually in the middle of a court battle right now with Boeing & Lockheed to try to keep them from locking competitors out of the Air Force's $32 billion EELV launch program. From this Businessweek article:

      The Defense Dept. may soon sign off on a Boeing-Lockheed joint venture that critics fear could lock up the Air Force's $32 billion heavy-payload launch program, known as Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV), until 2011. That would freeze SpaceX and other entrepreneurs out of a huge chunk of the military market.

      SpaceX is fighting hard to block the monopoly in the courts and at the Federal Trade Commission, which must approve the deal. ... But SpaceX fears it may not get a chance to offer the government its bargain blastoffs. To block the Boeing-Lockheed Martin joint venture, the company is spending as much time in the courtroom as in the cleanroom. While SpaceX lost its first court challenge, the opposition apparently compelled the Air Force to back off its plan, laid out in an internal memo, to shut out everyone but the two giants for launches through 2011. ...

      Even then, Boeing and Lockheed Martin will have a competitive edge: The Air Force is footing the bill for their infrastructure costs.

    4. Re:Key quote from TFA ... by O2H2 · · Score: 1
      Elon Musk does not have a launch vehicle that can meet the Buy 3 performance requirements. Period. He has a dream. That is all. His rocket has yet to get a foot in the air. When it does he will have 1000 lbs to LEO capability. And one sample. Big deal. It is a long way from there to being able to lift 10 tons to GSO on a predictable basis. His costs are based on ignorance of what it takes to build and KEEP building some of the most sophisticated machines on the planet. They don't just come together like a doorknob- they require teams of highly skilled people to keep them alive. These overhead costs are always underestimated by newbies and it is what zaps their business case. The Russians can do it cheaply since they pay their highly skilled engineers a month what a Western engineer makes in two-four days.

      Do a little research and check out just how anemic the US launch industry has become. The number of companies who even want to be bothered to make such high-end hardware has dwindled to typically 1-3 for each hardware specialty. This applies to things like pressure vessels, thrusters, main engines, sensors, insulation, motors, actuators, bellows, seals, hoses etc. The degree of expertise at these suppliers is also rapidly vanishing as the old dudes retire.

      There is no monopoly being proposed with the formation of ULA. You can buy rockets from the Russians, ESA and Chinese if you want. Most do. The consolidation of the Atlas and Delta teams is the only solution to a bad problem- there is no business case at present for US-made launch vehicles at the present rates. Both companies would love to pull the plug and unload these unprofitable divisions- leaving the US with NO indigenous lift capability except the lame-ass shuttle. Maybe. By consolidating the teams the best of both can be forged together- not at first but gradually and yes a lot of jobs are going to be lost- but less than the alternative.

      BTW these "dinosaurs" of the launch vehicle, LM & Boeing, have cut costs to orbit by nearly 50% over the past decade. That did not happen by being stupid. IT came from building on years of hard lessons.

      The one hope that existed was that NASA exploration would use the Atlas and Delta teams and increase their launch tempo to make their business cases close. This would have pumped more business into the subcontractor pool as rates rose to >10 vehicles/year The EXISTING Atlas and Delta vehicles can match what Mike Griffin chose to make from scratch with the CLV vehicle. Straightforward mods to those vehicles supported the HLV requirements at 1/3 the cost. The CEV could have had multiple boost vehicle options to assure access to space. But Noooooo. So now there is another competitor in an already saturated market- the CLV. And all that raving about man-rating is a bunch of garbage. There is NO SUCH THING. NASA cannot even define it or live to even the basics of an optimally safe vehicle architecture. The most important aspect of making a safe machine is building experience with the damn thing. Without that your overly redundant design is just a failure waiting to happen. The present NASA exploration architecture is an accident in progress- low rate, super-complex, brand new vehicles designed by newbies who have never had to try to buy hardware at rate. And embedded in this horror show are the super- vulnerable SSME and big expensive solids- the two things that have held the shuttle back for decades. Anyone who understands the fine line between normal ignition and disaster during SSME start can clearly see that this engine is not optimal for human spaceflight- even with the fault tolerance.

      This whole situation is bad for the US and bad for NASA. I suspect that Griffin would like to raise his launch rates by using CLV to move the payloads to ISS but he needs the money savings that result from using EELV's to pay for that CLV and the CEV and the HLV. It is already clear that if he had his way he would terminate ISS right now without hesistation. But i

    5. Re:Key quote from TFA ... by gronofer · · Score: 1

      If it was a level playing field, they would simply use Ariane, or perhaps the Russian/Indian/Chinese launchers. There's already a competive space market out there.

  12. The Complete Details by ThreeE · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/COTS/default.asp

  13. Corporations do a lot of cutting corners by Travoltus · · Score: 1

    You can expect a lot more accidents in the private sector. Unless the evil red communists step in and enforce strong safety and quality control regulations...

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    1. Re:Corporations do a lot of cutting corners by shmlco · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "You can expect a lot more accidents in the private sector."

      On the flip side, neither businesses nor investors nor insurrers like to lose billion dollar investments.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    2. Re:Corporations do a lot of cutting corners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who do you think makes most of the stuff nasa uses? Guess what CORPORATIONS do.

    3. Re:Corporations do a lot of cutting corners by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can expect a lot more accidents in the private sector.

      This, of course, is why we see so many accidents from commercial airlines and air cargo companies like FedEx. Their craft are so much more dangerous than government-operated vehicles.

    4. Re:Corporations do a lot of cutting corners by Travoltus · · Score: 1

      Private airlines aren't safe because they're private. They're safe because of a slew of regulations.

      --
      --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    5. Re:Corporations do a lot of cutting corners by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Private airlines aren't safe because they're private. They're safe because of a slew of regulations.

      Right. It's only because of the regulations. Consumers aren't smart enough to not buy tickets on an airline which crashes regularly.

      That said, what gives you the impression that the FAA isn't going to have any regulations on private spaceflight?

    6. Re:Corporations do a lot of cutting corners by Travoltus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Customers didn't have a choice. The zero crashes a year thing only started happening since after 2001. Until then, while flying was safer than driving, you had no idea which plane was poorly maintained.

      Such safe quality of service is expensive, and this is one of the reasons airlines are going out of business now.

      Go do a google on GM - their CEOs actually found it was cheaper to eat a bunch of lawsuits over defective and dangerous cars than to recall them, or make them safer. You can betcha the same rule will apply to private space transport.

      And big business would love to get rid of the FAA. Failing that they'll look for ways around it. Like flying cargo out of another country...

      --
      --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    7. Re:Corporations do a lot of cutting corners by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Customers didn't have a choice. The zero crashes a year thing only started happening since after 2001. Until then, while flying was safer than driving, you had no idea which plane was poorly maintained.

      I'm not sure I follow. Customers could choose to fly on a plane which was safer than the vehicle they use to get the airport. That's safe enough for me.

      In any case, I suspect we're operating off different definitions of "safe." I personally think that a consumer should be able to make a decision for themselves as to whether or not something is safe enough, whether it be driving, skydiving, or riding a rocket.

      Besides, right now the Space Shuttle has a 2% death rate per astronaut per flight. It shouldn't be too hard to beat that.

      Such safe quality of service is expensive, and this is one of the reasons airlines are going out of business now.

      I suspect the rising cost of jet fuel is a far greater cost factor than keeping your plane in one piece.

      Go do a google on GM - their CEOs actually found it was cheaper to eat a bunch of lawsuits over defective and dangerous cars than to recall them, or make them safer. You can betcha the same rule will apply to private space transport.

      Uh, right. Having highly-publicized explosions and driving up launch insurance costs are -great- for business.

      And big business would love to get rid of the FAA.

      I'd love to get rid of it too, but that's a different topic.

      Failing that they'll look for ways around it. Like flying cargo out of another country...

      Could you elaborate on how this is a bad thing?

    8. Re:Corporations do a lot of cutting corners by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      What he's not explaining well is that the dollars-to-safety curve follows the law of diminishing returns.

      So, the difference between what the airlines might like to see and what the FAA/citizens would like to see is probably a very small move up the curve, say from 10 crashes a year to 2 crashes a year.

      But that tiny move may cost 5x in safety expenditures. From a purely-economics standpoint it doesn't make sense to spend 5x the money on safety if the difference is statistically insignificant, but from a moral standpoint it does.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    9. Re:Corporations do a lot of cutting corners by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      But that tiny move may cost 5x in safety expenditures. From a purely-economics standpoint it doesn't make sense to spend 5x the money on safety if the difference is statistically insignificant, but from a moral standpoint it does.

      That's where I disagree, I guess. For example, one could drastically cut highway deaths by cutting the speed limit nation-wide to 40mph, but it wouldn't be worth the economic cost.

    10. Re:Corporations do a lot of cutting corners by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      It's a societal value - most people would much rather die with their hands on the wheel than sitting in a chair holding a lifevest (over Nevada). Maybe when we get used to these newfangled flying aero-planes people will think of them more like buses. But there is still a generation of people who predate the jet and another generation raised by them. There's only 1 or 2 generations exposed to commercial airtravel at an early age.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  14. Good, as long as... by code65536 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think this is good... as long as...

    1/ I think that the core NASA missions should be kept at NASA for the sake of maintaining scientific integrity and also because it allows for riskier and more substantial undertakings. The grunt work of hauling cargo (which is what this is all about) is a good candidate for outsourcing, though. So as long as this doesn't turn into a slippery slope of a total NASA privatization...

    2/ I am reserved about how effective this can be. Can the private sector really do it for a lower cost? Will they be able to do a good job? NASA is not very efficient, so hopefully this won't be that hard to achieve, but until they can show that private companies really can be as effective, I'll take this as wait-and-see.

    And to comment on the article's constant mention of space start-ups: perhaps I shouldn't judge so much on just one incident, but the whole X-Prize thing did not serve as a good first impression for me personally for the private-sector start-up space industry. The kind of hoopula that went into what was essentially a glorified rocket plane that momentarily touched space and won by a design that was geared specifically towards meeting the winning requirements was really discouraging (like studying for a test by studying the test instead of the real material), and I fear that, at the moment, much of the talk about space start-ups in the US is just hype.

    1. Re:Good, as long as... by RexRhino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      [quote]I am reserved about how effective this can be. Can the private sector really do it for a lower cost?[/quote]
      The private sector CAN do it cheaper for the private sector. Meaning, if a private company needs something launched, a private company can probably do it cheaper if all restrictions are removed by the government.

      But, don't expect private industry to make it cheaper when selling services to the government. Contracts are awarded based on politics... not cost or practicality.

      [quote]And to comment on the article's constant mention of space start-ups: perhaps I shouldn't judge so much on just one incident, but the whole X-Prize thing did not serve as a good first impression for me personally for the private-sector start-up space industry. The kind of hoopula that went into what was essentially a glorified rocket plane that momentarily touched space and won by a design that was geared specifically towards meeting the winning requirements was really discouraging (like studying for a test by studying the test instead of the real material), and I fear that, at the moment, much of the talk about space start-ups in the US is just hype.[/quote]
      The X-Prize is an incremental step. The contest was designed in order for the private space industry to develop technology in incrememtal stages. You solve the problems of sub-orbital flight, then you move on to orbital flight. And please remember that they did it for less money than it would cost to design the logo and letterhead for a project if it was NASA. Seriously, it cost less to win the X-Prize than to design and build the toilet on the Space Shuttle. Already they are building a fleet of suborbital ships to take tourists into space. NASA hasn't even come close to developing anything that will take the general public to space.

      NASA is the worst! The best thing that could happen to space travel would be to shut NASA down. Already the demand for satalites would be enought to get the private industry jumpstarted.

    2. Re:Good, as long as... by wolf31o2 · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing the point that "private sector" does not equate to "start-ups" in any way. It could very easily be the same people that built the shuttle that undertake this. The difference would be that it's their dime when they launch the thing, so it would be much more efficient and probably more sturdy. After all, they would be designing it form the ground up to be used by themselves, so they would want to be able to maximize profits and make it as reusable and safe as possible. Not add on possible scenarios of use such as having it as a mobile weapons launching platform. Who exactly do you think builds all of these shuttles/space planes/etc for NASA? The private sector, of course.

  15. Also carried by C|Net by code65536 · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you want to get this at the ol' .com.com (never understood why they did that) instead of MSNBC, here's C|Net's article on this:
    http://news.com.com/NASA+seeks+private+replacement s+for+shuttle+trips/2100-11397_3-5986093.html

    1. Re:Also carried by C|Net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is just the same as the very first comment above. So thanks for nothing, karma whore. Jeebus.

    2. Re:Also carried by C|Net by Cervantes · · Score: 1
      If you want to get this at the ol' .com.com (never understood why they did that)...


      There was a time, once upon a time, where if you typed an incomplete or invalid address into the address bar on your browser, your browser would start cycling through the .com/.org/.net possibilities... so, say, you just typed "microsoft" into your browser bar, you'd end up at microsoft.com.

      By buying the .com domain, and then registering aliases for popular sites, ".com" is ensuring that they get immediate, huge traffic if the real "news.com" ever lets their registration lapse, or if their site goes down... because they're hoping browsers will append a ".com" to it, and go to news.com.com

      --
      If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
  16. NASA = the gummint in space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration

    Google Is Your Friend

    So is Wikipedia

  17. Re:Look out below, citizens! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The president cannot make laws.

  18. I am volunteering by morcheeba · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think if everyone works together, launching payload into space will be easy. If you got everyone in a medium-sized town (54,000 people) to cooperate and have each person lift just 6 feet, you could get the payload into space without expensive rockets. I am stepping up to the plate and personally offering to lift the payload from 5400 feet to 5406 feet. Any takers for "5394 to 5400" or "5406 to 5412"?

    --
    HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
  19. Commercial Crew/Cargo Project Office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Is this possibly just a good reason for NASA to have a department called the "3C-PO"? Hmmm....
    -Timbo.

    1. Re:Commercial Crew/Cargo Project Office by hanshotfirst · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just down the hall from Research-Research / Development-Development

      --
      Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
    2. Re:Commercial Crew/Cargo Project Office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better source for the acronym would be "Rocktery Research, Development and Design".

  20. Excellent idea by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This will help provide some much needed incentive for companies to invest in space beyond satellites and the dreams of a few nutty billionairs. We need more SpaceShip1 s and genuenly American pioneers like this guy...http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/e 08989c49db84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

    --
    Demented But Determined.
    1. Re:Excellent idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are lots of companies out there developing commerical launch systems. http://www.spacex.com/ http://www.kistleraerospace.com/ http://www.garvspace.com/ http://www.zigaero.com/

  21. Foolproof delivery solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    NASA should just call UPS or Fedex. The overnight or 2nd day guaranteed delivery should be perfect!

  22. Businessweek article on SpaceX by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Informative

    SpaceX is one of the private launch firms mentioned in the article and considered by many alt.spacers as the foremost contender for the ISS commercial crew & cargo contracts. Businessweek just published a pretty informative article on them, The Final Frontier At Costco Prices. Here's some relevant quotes from the article:

    If SpaceX succeeds in lofting its rocket and an Air Force Academy research satellite into orbit, Musk will vindicate his vision and his investment. Financed almost entirely out of his own pocket, the company is the South Africa native's attempt to carve out a lucrative niche in the wildly expensive launch business. Musk believes that he can blast military and commercial satellites into space at Costco prices -- $6.7 million for a small payload and $38 million to $78 million for a heavyweight launch. By comparison, the Air Force's total cost for a Boeing or Lockheed Martin launch of a big payload comes to about $230 million, up from an inflation-adjusted $95 million in 1998. ...

    So far, satellite customers have rewarded Musk's optimism with $200 million in advance launch contracts. The company faces just two problems. While SpaceX, based in El Segundo, Calif., has fired off plenty of press releases, it has yet to get a rocket off the ground. Its first launch, already two years behind schedule, was scrubbed on Nov. 26 because of a balky computer and a liquid-oxygen leak from a valve inadvertently left open. The company expects to try again in mid-December. ...

      Such rock-bottom fees -- and a belief in the reliability of SpaceX's gear -- have attracted a range of clients, from an unidentified U.S. intelligence agency to the Malaysian government to Las Vegas-based Bigelow Aerospace. The startup is betting that companies will want to do research on the inflatable space stations it plans to put into orbit. ...

      Musk says he has overcome many technical hurdles by simplifying launch hardware. For example, SpaceX uses the same engine on all its stages instead of different units. Its electronics are on chips instead of circuit boards, which reduces wiring glitches. To slice costs, most SpaceX rocket stages are reusable instead of expendable. And SpaceX intends to save money by recovering sections from the ocean instead of rebuilding an entire rocket. Musk also brought a Silicon Valley business model to Southern California, forming a small, innovative, 150-employee company, a sharp contrast to the bureaucratic legions who toil on launches for Boeing and Lockheed Martin Corp. In an age of outsourcing, SpaceX makes its engines and boosters in-house to avoid high-priced suppliers such as Pratt & Whitney (UTX ), General Electric (GE ), and Rolls-Royce. If he used those manufacturers' components, Musk says, he would be trapped in "the high-cost culture of the space industry." ...

      For Musk, beating the big guys out of a share of the launch market is just the start. His ultimate goal is to turn everyone into a highflier by making launches so cheap, easy, and common that humans will become, in his words, "a space-faring, multiplanet species." Musk wants to colonize Mars as a backup planet because Earth is vulnerable to manmade and natural disasters. Beachfront property on the Red Planet? Maybe someday. But first, Musk has to get off the beach at Kwajalein and show the doubters that his rockets can soar as high as his rhetoric.

    1. Re:Businessweek article on SpaceX by jafac · · Score: 1

      Good luck to Musk. I've read about some of their proposed vehicles. I have more faith that Duke Nukem forever will fly before SpaceX's big birds. I'm not opposed to competition in the spacelaunch business - I'm just very pessimistic about it. There's a whole lot of inertia in this business. Some of it's because the gummint is involved, and some of it is because of military contracting involvement. (which is a different kind of inertia). It's a high-cost culture for a reason.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  23. stupid mods by Travoltus · · Score: 1

    That's not a troll post, it's very true.

    Cost cutting and cutting corners - ethically included - is a major part of any outsourced operation.

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    1. Re:stupid mods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  24. My name is Hans Solo... by Cidtek · · Score: 0

    Where do I apply?

  25. Ahem... by Errandboy+of+Doom · · Score: 2, Funny

    Freaking Space Elevators!!!

    1. Re:Ahem... by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Freaking Space Elevators!!!

      NASA is running contests to help make those more feasible. Unfortunately, Congress currently has a cap on the amount they're allowed to offer for competitive prizes -- it's very hard to turn a competitive prize into pork barrel for one's congressional district.

  26. News From the Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2007: SpaceMan Tours launches new Dark Side Moon Tours
    2008: SpaceMan Tours executives hauled before Congress regarding accounting irregularities
    2009: SpaceMan Tours lays off 7000 employees, shifts operations to Mobtabaru
    2010: SpaceMan Tours closes moon route stranding 200 tourists
    2011: SpaceMan Tours closes plants, mothballs operations
    2012: Galactic Tours buys SpaceMan Tours for 1.3 Million; assumes debt of 200 Billion
    2013: Galactic Tours CEO indicted for bribing Senator Snobgrass
    2014: Galactic Tours lays off 9000 employees, closes moon route
    2015: Congress reinstates NASA for spaceflights

  27. not likely by nasor · · Score: 1

    You know, I somehow suspect that the MSNBC site will be able to handle the traffic...

  28. Thank the terrorists by lheal · · Score: 1
    I think you're right in most of what you say, but you're not being fair when you say:
    Right now, NASA has become too distracted with political and budget battles to really take space technology to the next level.

    I live in a small town in the midwestern U.S. Most folks in these parts don't reckon there's much of a need for travelin' in outer space. ("We went to the moon. Yawn. Who do the Bears play on Sunday?")

    Generalizing, there's probably not a lot of constituent pressure on Congress to fund NASA. The President calls for some mission to Mars or whatever, but his base really isn't into it. The Democrats' are more focused on social programs and environmental issues - and whatever they can do to make Mr. Bush look bad. Nobody but nerds really cares about NASA.

    So if NASA is too distracted by budget battles, there's probably a good reason for it. No budget, no rockets. Nobody's out there making the case for NASA as an investment in the future of humanity. I thought with all the meteor disaster movies a few years ago that there would be enough public interest in dodging giant interstellar rocks, but I think 9/11 must have captured public attention.

    --
    Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
  29. Outsource to ... by animeshpathak · · Score: 2, Informative

    How about the Antrix corporation ?
    On a serious note, what are the prospects for international organizations bidding for the contracts? What are the implications?

    --
    "- What's so unpleasant about being drunk?"
    "- You ask a glass of water."[from h2g2]
    1. Re:Outsource to ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > On a serious note, what are the prospects for international organizations bidding for the contracts?
      > What are the implications?

      The Q&A file on the NASA procurement site answers this question:

      Q: Will the opportunity to participate in NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services Space Flight Demonstrations be for US companies only or can foreign companies also participate?

      A: U.S. entities shall be the signatories on the agreements, however foreign companies can participate. Foreign participation shall be in compliance with Federal laws, regulations, and policies. A reference to the key laws and policies will be provided in the announcement.

      The details are in the Announcement:

      4.2 Eligible Participants
      The following entities may submit proposals under this announcement: an entity organized under the laws of the United States or of a State, which is

      A. More than 50 percent owned by United States nationals; or

      B. A subsidiary of a foreign company and the Secretary of Transportation finds that -

      (i) Such subsidiary has in the past evidenced a substantial commitment to the United States market through -

      a. Investments in the United States in long-term research, development, and manufacturing (including the manufacture of major components and subassemblies); and

      b. Significant contributions to employment in the United States; and

      (ii) The country or countries in which such foreign company is incorporated or organized, and, if appropriate, in which it principally conducts its business, affords reciprocal treatment to companies described in subparagraph (A) comparable to that afforded to such foreign company's subsidiary in the United States, as evidenced by

      A. Providing comparable opportunities for companies described in subparagraph (A) to participate in Government sponsored research and development similar to that authorized under Title 42 U.S.C. Chapter 141 (Commercial Space Opportunities and Transportation Services).

      B. Providing no barriers, to companies described in subparagraph (A) with respect to local investment opportunities, that are not provided to foreign companies in the United States; and

      C. Providing adequate and effective protection for the intellectual property rights of companies described in subparagraph (A).

  30. Giant rubber Band by MrShaggy · · Score: 0

    maybe that will help ??

    --
    I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
  31. That was the law 15 years ago by Baldrson · · Score: 2, Informative
    "create a market environment in which commercial space transportation services are available to Government and private sector customers."

    Very magnanimous (as well as wise) of NASA however that was law 15 years ago -- PL101-611 the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990. Dan Goldin must have been too busy "reforming" NASA to bother following the reform laws grassroots activists got passed the aerospace lobbies.

    --
    Seastead this.
  32. Re:ANYBODY NEED A SPANKING? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would have said yes, but your command of English is too poor. "A adult female"? That should have been "an adult female."

    Girls don't get intimate with guys who're illiterate.

  33. Go private. by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look, after Apollo 1, we were flying again within 9 months. After challenger, it took less than a year. Now, we are up to several years and will retire the equipment shortly thereafter. In addition, Nixon worked to kill NASA, Reagan scattered it in a million directions (without funding). Carter, Poppa Bush and clinton just went with the flow. The current bush now tasks them with going to the moon, but it appears that he will fund it less than what he did "no child left behind". About the only real leaders that we have had for the last 50 years, has been Eisenhower (road systems) and Kennedy (NASA amongst others). Plain and Simple, America's space systems can not be left to idiots.

    Yes, private companies will crash and burn; literally. And people will die. Make no mistake about it. Private companies will lose ships and ppl. But these ppl will have died doing something that they believed in and was useful to not only America but the world as whole. Well worth the price.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Go private. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days."

      Then why can't you even be bothered to put the eo and e in people?

    2. Re:Go private. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Then why can't you even be bothered to put the eo and e in people?
      An old habit from being on 75/300 baud modems in the 80s, while the "u" is simply a play on letters/words.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:Go private. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Look, after Apollo 1, we were flying again within 9 months.

      Incorrect. 21 months (27 Jan 1967 - 11 Oct 1968).

      > After challenger, it took less than a year.

      Incorrect. 32 months (28 Jan 1986 - 29 Sep 1988).

      > Now, we are up to several years...

      30 months (1 Feb 2003 - 26 Jul 2005). Less than Challenger.

      > Nixon worked to kill NASA

      Nixon had to deal with decisions made by his predecessor (LBJ had already decided to cap the Saturn V production line at 15 rockets), and a Congress disinclined to spend money on space. LBJ had already cut NASA's budget 36% from its 1966 peak; Nixon cut it another 46% (all figures adjusted for inflation).

      > Reagan scattered it in a million directions (without funding)

      Reagan increased NASA's budget 48% (inflation-adjusted).

      > Carter, Poppa Bush and clinton just went with the flow.

      Carter and Clinton, maybe. Poppa Bush increased NASA's budget by 15% and initiated a lunar/Mars program that was later killed by Clinton.

      > The current bush now tasks them with going to the moon, but it appears that he will fund it less than
      > what he did "no child left behind".

      He has at least increased NASA's budget every year of his administration, which is more than can be said for his predecessor.

  34. Taco Bell going interplanetary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    From the article...
    "Other start-up firms that have expressed interest in NASA's space station business include t/Space, SpaceDev, ... Taco Bell ..."
    What the hell...?
    1. Re:Taco Bell going interplanetary by TheGavster · · Score: 1

      While most space companies focus on the cargo going up, Taco Bell is unique in that it has demonstrated business plans, mostly in the advertising sector, that involve cargo coming back down.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    2. Re:Taco Bell going interplanetary by FrontalLobe · · Score: 1

      Mmmmm, space tacos... [drool/]

      --
      -FL
  35. About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NASA has a great history and all, but lets leave the innovation to the private sector (and the spending to the taxpayers).

  36. Anyone notice? by __aajelt3877 · · Score: 1

    Commercial Crew/Cargo Project Office ::= C3PO

    Someone has a sense of humor...

  37. Two words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Giant Trebuchet!

  38. Should be Good For NASA by lorelorn · · Score: 1
    NASA have already lost out any chance of getting money from private space use- the Russians and Europeans have the satellite launch business sewn up. If the US is to have any chance of competing here, it will be through private interests.

    If NASA turns over the commercially viable uses of space to private industry, then the Agency can concentrate on the kind of exploration missions that it should be doing - the private sector would never mount a Voyager or Pathfinder mission, for example. I think more missions along those lines are where NASA's future should lie.

    NASA are just standing in the way of US commercial space interests, and they should get out of the way, concentrate on their strengths, and stop trying to be "all things space" which is simply not a realistic goal.

  39. Gas Station by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Griffin also wants someone to develop a gas station in space so that his rockets can refuel from it instead of carrying extra fuel from earth.

  40. You are at the wrong place by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    You should be posting over at the Bill Clinton Library.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  41. What about Hollywood? by CrimsonScythe · · Score: 0

    With all the movies and TV-series that take place in space that has come out lately, it's pretty obvious that the people in Hollywood has found an economical way to move large structures and vehicles into space. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been able to film these movies and series like they do, would they? I mean, they even managed to send a star-ship full of actors to the Delta Quadrant, which is very far away, so launching stuff into orbit will be trivial at worst. I can't believe that the NASA people can't get down from their high horses and accept a little help from Hollywood...

    --
    The view was horrible and the smell was even worse; Julie severely regretted becoming a proctologist.
  42. Can anyone say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FedEx

  43. NASA does not own and control space by foolish_to_be_here · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Though we in the USA like to think that we control space and call all of the "shots", the reality is that China is well on it's way to puting us in second place in the next 10 years. Let's see, Russia and the European Space Agency routinely put rockets into space as does China. Japan, India, and even North Korea have rockets. Point is that if you want to hitch a ride into space, NASA is not the only show in town. NASA does not decide all who fly.

    --
    Please mod me 1 or troll. It's where the truth is these days, even on Slashdot. Beware the power of moderators everywh
    1. Re:NASA does not own and control space by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      China is well on it's way to puting us in second place in the next 10 years

      Let's see, we're planning for a moon base (to fight aliens) and China is doing John-Glen-style orbits.

      They get an A-for-effort though.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:NASA does not own and control space by khallow · · Score: 1
      Though we in the USA like to think that we control space and call all of the "shots", the reality is that China is well on it's way to puting us in second place in the next 10 years. Let's see, Russia and the European Space Agency routinely put rockets into space as does China. Japan, India, and even North Korea have rockets. Point is that if you want to hitch a ride into space, NASA is not the only show in town. NASA does not decide all who fly.

      This is incorrect. The Chinese simply aren't launching in the kind of volume to overtake the US. If there are Chinese officials who think they currently are competing effectively with the US, then they are in for a rude surprise. Here's the facts. Even after a huge slowdown in US launches, China still launched only half as many last year. The link above also contains the entire history of both the US and Russian space programs. Note how much more substantial their volume was than China's space effort.

      China can indeed ramp up launches tremendously and put the US in second place. But their history indicates they aren't doing so. Further there's no sign here of a Chinese takeover of the space launch industry.

  44. Commercial Crew/Cargo Project by Max+Threshold · · Score: 2, Funny

    Are they going to put "CCCP" on the sides of the vehicles?

    1. Re:Commercial Crew/Cargo Project by chawly · · Score: 1

      And why would they not. CCCP for Commercial Crew/Cargo Project ...... oh, I see, wait just a moment..... that would mean that they have to keep right on using Russian rocketry to fulfill their obligations. Obviously a copyright/patent issue.

      --
      How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
  45. because NASA can't do it themselves... by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1

    because NASA can't do it themselves and they know it... they haven't been able to do anything aside from the occasional sending a crew and supplies into space for at least the past 25 years. they just cant do it and make a profit - they dont know how. at the very least, the "private sector" will do what europe has been doing and send up something like an Arian rocket - no crew, just the payload (then you dont need to waste space with air, food, water or any of that stuff)

  46. problems with that by khallow · · Score: 1
    1/ I think that the core NASA missions should be kept at NASA for the sake of maintaining scientific integrity and also because it allows for riskier and more substantial undertakings. The grunt work of hauling cargo (which is what this is all about) is a good candidate for outsourcing, though. So as long as this doesn't turn into a slippery slope of a total NASA privatization...

    Seriously, what is a "core NASA mission"? Frankly, I'm not aware of one. IMHO, the Space Shuttle, ISS, even the space probes aren't core missions. Neither is the hypothetical lunar exploration. Note also that the only current missions with scientific value, ie, the space probes are mostly constructed by private industry.

    2/ I am reserved about how effective this can be. Can the private sector really do it for a lower cost? Will they be able to do a good job? NASA is not very efficient, so hopefully this won't be that hard to achieve, but until they can show that private companies really can be as effective, I'll take this as wait-and-see.

    Of course they can. But it'll also depend greatly on what sort of contracts NASA employs. If they go "cost plus", then it'll probably be a boondoggle. A warning sign for me is that Griffin has indicated he will continue to use "cost plus" contracts for some NASA business. If this is done here, we'll probably not see cost and perhaps not quality improvements either.

    And to comment on the article's constant mention of space start-ups: perhaps I shouldn't judge so much on just one incident, but the whole X-Prize thing did not serve as a good first impression for me personally for the private-sector start-up space industry. The kind of hoopula that went into what was essentially a glorified rocket plane that momentarily touched space and won by a design that was geared specifically towards meeting the winning requirements was really discouraging (like studying for a test by studying the test instead of the real material), and I fear that, at the moment, much of the talk about space start-ups in the US is just hype.

    Still compared to what? NASA throws money away in ways that would get a corporate CEO jailed. The only space program I'd say is run competently is the Russian one.

  47. Outsourced.... by djk001 · · Score: 1

    Will I be able to outsource a payload to the employer who outsourced my job, with this plan?

    --
    The thing I like most about this job is all the rocket scientists who bang their mice on their desks shouting 'It Broke!
  48. I'll help! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't carry a lot, so moving a piano is right out, but if I get to wear a space suit, I'll be happy to help NASA carry some of their cargo into space! Always glad to help out a research institution in need of a hand.

    Just not Wednesday; I'm busy on Wednesdays.