NASA Seeks Help Carrying Cargo Into Space

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."

Comments

This Is Something That SHOULD Be Outsourced

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This Is Something That SHOULD Be Outsourced

[R3d M3rcury]

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.

Re:In case article gets /.'ed . . .

[Fyre2012]

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

Key quote from TFA ...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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>

Re:Will this make NASA obsolete?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

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.

Good, as long as...

[code65536]

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.

Re:Good, as long as...

[RexRhino]

[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.

Re:Will this make NASA obsolete?

[vought]

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.

Re:Corporations do a lot of cutting corners

[shmlco]

"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.

Go private.

[WindBourne]

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.

Re:Corporations do a lot of cutting corners

[FleaPlus]

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?

NASA does not own and control space

[foolish_to_be_here]

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.