Slashdot Mirror
NASA Holds Competition to Develop Space Vehicles
BlueCup writes to tell us that the US space agency is holding a competition to develop space vehicles NASA doesn't have the time or resources to develop. The winning companies will get $500 million and NASA will merely lease them as the need arises. From the article: "NASA hopes the private-sector vehicles can bridge an expected gap between when the space shuttle fleet is grounded in 2010 and the crew exploration vehicle is flying in 2014. A thriving commercial space transportation industry also can offer researchers, and others, opportunities to send payloads into space without relying on NASA's crowded space shuttle schedule or worrying 'that the government will decide next month or next year not to launch,' Griffin said."
500 million isn't enough to develop a long term, repeatable, economical vehicle for launches. 500 million gets you one vehicle that MAY launch successfully...once.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
are we seeing the forming of an equivilant of the Military-Industrial_Complex in the field of Space Exloration? Will the government contracts to private companies lead to massive spending in the field of space exloration like it did for the Millitary starting after WWII?
As opposed to lining the pockets of a corrupt domestic government?
How we know is more important than what we know.
A curious thought here: if a corporation could launch a fleet of ships to outer space, wouldn't that put them out of government reach? Sure, seize their ground control, they'll just land in another country. (If not drop a bomb of their own!) Obviously we would need a way to destroy such a threat! Let's contract out for a solution!
@HbFyo0$k8 tH!$
Yes, we should exploit deep space as soon as possible for any number of reasons, but the most compelling is economic... Isn't nickel (required for stainless steel) getting rather rare these days? Yet it's plentiful in the asteroid belt. While the harsh environment of deep space forces some new processes to extract minerals, it also provides more efficiencies in other areas.
The simplest approach to mining would be to fabricate simple ablative heat shields and automated re-entry mechanisms for loads of metals and drop them into the desert (every continent has desert areas to use for recovery of these materials), where they could be easily recovered.
The unstated part of the problem, of course, lies in the fact that as the process becomes more routine, the price of rare metals goes down drastically, since the supply becomes far more plentiful.
Still, the bounty of mining our belt for raw materials that are being depleted (or where mining of such material is restricted for environmental concerns) could provide us incentive to enter a true "space age".
"When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything, the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks." ;)
- Fight Club
It's bad enough now with the Telco's thinking they own the internet. So NASA will lease them for some of the time, what about the rest of the time...? Does the company get to use it's own gear to put up satellites and what not?
To be objective, I guess someone's got to pay for it. But space travel and the means to do so should not be patented away, preventing anyone else the means to get to space should they wish to build their own machine and get off this rock; perhaps assurances against something like this will be needed?
(Toungue-in-cheek throughout.)
If civvies can get into space, then there's surely no further need for a federal space program and embarrasments like the shuttle can be put behind us.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Finally...
The only part of the government that should be in the business of building and flying space vehicles is the military.
Deleted
Too right. If NASA + contractors can't build something that works reliably aand cost effectively then why should they be protected? Let market forces dominate and offshore the whole lot!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Why not simply turn over access to "deep space" to private enterprise? Asteroid belt mining is a staple of SF - is there a real commercial incentive today or do we have to wait till ol' Mother Earth runs out of diggable dirt-based useful stuff first?
If there was a commercial incentive, it would be done. There is no "access" to deep space to turn over to free enterprise - they are free to launch stuff into deep space and mine the asteroids all they want if they choose to. Sure, a license is required, but licensing is essentially demonstrating to the government that you won't endanger the public or cause an international incident. Governments appear to have a monopoly on deep space launches only because there is currently no profit to be made, so they're the only ones doing it.
Worst...sig...ever!
The X-prize has been won. SpaceShipOne achieved its most spectacular flight yet, climbing to an altitude of 377591 feet (71 1/2 miles) to win the $10 million Ansari X Prize back in Oct 2005. This is a MUCH bigger and much tougher contest, however knowing NASA they'll drag this thing out 2-3-5 years and then all these companies will either be gone or have commercialized the systems on thier own and won't need the NASA $$$. Or NASA could split the prize money 2 or 3 ways and none of the winners would get adequate funding. NASA should give the money to a private foundation (like maybe Ansara???) who then makes the awards.
I think its great giving free enterprise a shot at this. This kind of thing would be impossible in the Marxist societies I have been seeing advocated all weekend on Slashdot.
What NASA should be doing is developing a workable business model that will make itself self-sufficient.
NASA SHOULD BE OFFERING commercial services to American Civilians.
1. Suborbital Flights.
2. Cremation Services with Partial ashes launched into space.
3. For Fee Licensing of Patents resulting from NASA Research.
4. And any other compettiive services Comercial companies plan to offer.
And those who think government shouldn't be making money, you should be reminded of United States Postal Service. USPS is a self-sufficient government agency. They rarely ask for federal money.
\
The sad thing is that for 20 mill a pop, you can contract Energia to fly soyuz/progress. Much cheaper, safer and reliable. But politics just get in the way of good science. If I were NASA I would buy the design and rights to manufacture it, but they never would because it aint made in the US.
Almost. Privatization is best at "optimizing for profit", and only that. It just so happens that in a great majority of endeavors, that leads to increased productivity, freedom and quality-of-life.
However, some things do not benefit from privatization. These things tend to be public services, utilities, life-and-death services, very difficult/expensive endeavors with inadequate profit potential, and things that don't get done otherwise. In the case of NASA, we are stuck with "very difficult, expensive, and lack of sufficient profit motive".
That said, properly executed partnerships with private corporations (as is done with the shuttle, and I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't also the case with Apollo), can let the private sector do what it does best and large governmental organizations do what they do best. The biggest problem with just throwing it out there for the private sector (as it sounds is the case here), is that:
1. The private sector will only do it if they believe there's profit in it.
2. The private sector may fail to provide anything.
The drawback with #1 is that the private sector won't necessarily provide the best vehicle, but the most profitable vehicle. That's not to say that a government agency will necessarily do the best (after all, the Air Force's interests altered the shuttle into a substantially inferior craft). Still, removing the profit motive removes a major potential conflict of interest. Additionally, the profit will have to come from NASA anyway, so what's the difference for NASA to just design the craft and contract out construction anyway?
The potential drawback of #2 is even more severe. A hobbled craft is superior, at least in the short-term, to no craft at all (poorly executed, a hobbled craft could set the space program backwards (as some have claimed the shuttle has done), but at least we've got something to get us into space). What are NASA's plans if the private sector fails to deliver a product (note: the private sector has never delivered a complete orbital human-flight spacecraft, so what makes NASA think they will manage to do so so quickly?)? Do we just bow out of space for the interim? Do we hitchhike aboard Soyuz? Extend the shuttle program? (According to TFA, sadly, it appears that the answer is this is only to go to ISS, so, aside from missions there, we effectively will be bowing out of non-ISS-related human spaceflight for four years. F**K! Someone, please, prove me wrong!)
In my opinion, I'd prefer Congress just fund NASA enough to do what they need to do, so long as it can be done within reason. After all, as I point out above, if the private sector does come up with a solution, NASA will still have to foot the bill anyway. If NASA really thinks this will work, it sounds like excessive faith in the free market. If NASA really knows the high improbability that this will succeed, it sounds more like an attempt to use the private sector as a scapegoat ("no one anticipated[*] the private sector would fail to provide a solution").
[*] Three magical words which seem able to absolve the speaker from any personal responsibility or blame for any disaster or failure.
This isn't just a reworked White Knight we're talking about here. The White Knight was specifically designed to win the X-prize. Van said all along that it was a suborbital design from the get go, and was specifically not designed as a first-stage-to-orbit kind of ship.
My guess is that one of the booster makers (like Boeing or Lockheed) is going to paste a passenger capsule on top of an existing rocket. The technology of lifting is already done.
John
This is about competition to get into space. IOW, to do what russia currently does (and we currently buy from). And yes, we do need to go beyond leo. But LEO can be profitable and is a great first step. Basically, just developing ships to carry passengers to the ISS (or to bigelows SS) will more than be profitable for a few companies. Once that is going, then a company can shoot for the moon. Of course, keep in mind, that NASA is developing a system that can shoot for the moon/mars. Ideally, it will allow a small base camp to be set-up. And the cost of it will probably be more than 20 billions when done. Few small companies can afford that. Even now, Gates and Buffet are getting ready to take their accumulated billions (which they are in the few who could evelop this) and spread it around which means that they will not be able to do this. So how many other companies can do it? well, for a perspective, it cost intel or ibm 1 billion dollars to develop a new manufactuering plant. And that cost is spread over 10 years. 20 billion is beyond large companies, let alone small ones.
Finally, the GP (bob-cat mymphs) does not have the word future in their posting. And there was nothing to indicate that they were thinking about that.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I don't think anyone (even NASA) still has the full blueprints for the Saturn V rockets anymore. As I recall, Apollo 17 went up and then the rockets for 18 and 19 were still in the launch pipeline when the moon program was canceled.
Now, over 3 decades later, you are looking at military contractors which have gone bankrupt or merged or been acquired or who-knows-what-else. Beyond that, the "people knowledge" of those who designed and built the Saturn 5's is long gone by now, and I'm willing to bet that in something as complex as a Saturn V, there is at least one piece of now-undocumented design information, waiting to spoil someone's day...
In short: the two remaining Saturn V's that are still around (Johnson and Kennedy Space Flight centers, serial numbers SA-514 and SA-515) are the only two to exist for the foreseeable future. When we, as a nation, decide to go to the moon again, we'll have to build a new rocket from scratch.
"It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
> There's no private market for space telescopes.
... you want space telescopes, & think other people should be made to pay for them?
Which means
No. As opposed to creating a non-government industry focused on building vehicles to get us to space.
In my own opinion, it's much better than lining anyone's pockets. Although rather than a $500 million prize to a single company, I would rather they guarantee 100 seats a year on any company able to get people there alive and ok.
Part of the problem before for private industry is there was no reward to create a private method to do it. With this, there's only a single reward for the first company.
In general the idea of competition and prizes is good, however, as the number of 'challenges', 'races', and 'prizes' increase, I don't see a similar increase in traditional funding of basic research.
As a person working in research at a university, who will be paying my expenses for material and labor (=graduate student and tuition fees, I'm not counting my summer). There are two ways for me:
1) I take the full risk and hope to win the prize or
2) I screw a funding agency and use some of their grant money to compete here as well.
Clearly 2) is the way to go. Moreover, I even have to rip them off even more, since I won't win the prize each time I seriously compete and have to compensate these losses.
Again, don't get me wrong. Competition is good, prizes and challenges are good, however, not at the expense of traditionally funded basic research. Unfortunately, that's what's happening, since it moves the risk from the sponsor to the researcher and that just looks good in the public.
I totally agree SS1 is mainly a modern X-15. But that in itself is something. SS1 is a lot simpler and a lot cheaper, both to develop and to run.
It's a step. But there is still a long way to go. SS1's shuttlecock system of landing won't work at LEO reentry speeds.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Actually - this is the worst possible future. Prizes tend to generate point solutions to winning the prize - rather than general solutions.[1] Grants tend to generate solutions that go precisely to the bounds of the RFP - and no further.
[1] The X-Prize is a perfect example of this - it was originally intended to provide technologies to jumpstart LEO acess. Instead, we got a craft utterly incapable of being scaled up to provide LEO acess - a craft that's a point solution.
Apollo wasn't well tested, nor effective (for LEO work), nor simple. Apollo flew only around 20 flights - not even remotely enough for any reasonable testing program. Apollo is far too heavy for LEO work, as it's heatshield and engines are sized for cislunar work. Lastly, even by today's standards, the Apollo CSM is an extremely complicated beast with hundreds of subsystems and hundreds of thousands of components.
And what about the guidance systems? The heatshield? The electronics? The dozens of other components and systems that are either no longer manufactured or not safe by modern standards? The best estimates by people who know the field (and aren't in NASA's employ) is that it would cost more to rebuild Apollo/Saturn than it would be to start with a blank sheet.
Mass production won't reduce the per unit price much - because the real expense is in the man hours needed to build them and then prepare them for launch. (I.E. 'mass production' isn't a spell you can just intone - it takes real work, a lot of it, to make something as large and complex as Apollo/Saturn mass producible.) You'd need to redesign them for automated manufacture and reduced man hours in both production and preperation. Your $500 million dollar budget would cover about the first year of this five to ten year effort.
Count on NASA to screw this project up, too.
In the late 90's Lockheed Martin wanted to build a single-state-to-orbit (SSTO) replacement for the space shuttle. They were so confident in their design, all they asked for to build it was $100M. They would fund the rest themselves, and recoup their expenses selling the ship commercially.
NASA killed it in stages. The first stage was to take over program management of the project, which they did simply by funding it to $500M, rather than the $100M Lockheed asked for. Then, they spread development of various pieces of VentureStar to several companies, some of whom have a proven track record of failure. Finally, as various companies failed to develop their piece, they turned on the project, claiming it could never work and was a bad idea in the first place. The end result was much additional funding from Congress to continue backing NASA's stupid shuttle program.
The legacy of VentureStar was quite interesting, and seems to go back to secret SkunkWorks projects. A previous SkunkWorks director, Ben Rich, who presided over the development of the stealth fighter, wrote a book called SkunkWorks. In it, he denied that the hyper-sonic plane (referred to on the net as Aurora) exists, and further claimed that it could not be built. The skin would get too hot, and the hydrogen/oxygen engines were impractical. Not three years after publishing this book, however, Lockheed was asking for a mere $100M to build VentureStar, using technologies never publicly seen before - linear spiking hydrogen/oxygen engines, and a special metallic skin that could take the heat of reentry. Hmm....
So, Lockheed is still sitting on it's VentureStar plans. Boeing has finally built the linear spiking engines, and just to show how NASA was trying to kill the project, Lockheed's VentureStar crew built a successful fuel tank for free (NASA killed the project after another company failed in this portion of the effort).
Another cool project NASA killed was the DC-X, as well as other related SSTO vertical takeoff and landing craft. The cool thing about this rocket was how cheap it was to fly. They demonstrated on their reduced-scale prototype that they could land on gravel, run out a fuel truck, and launch again. Even though the prototype was clearly successful, NASA killed this project after the prototype fell over due to a simple hydraulic malfunction on one of it's three legs and exploded. One of the reasons stated by NASA for killing the DC-X was to focus funds on the higher performance VentureStar project!
A multi-pronged approach may have been better than NASA's single-minded shuttle focus. A DC-X technology based rocket could cheaply lift satellites and building materials for the ISS to LEO (or even lower). Focusing on low-cost, rather than reliability would greatly reduce the cost per-pound of getting stuff in orbit, but would not be suitable for human flight. Space-tugs, using ion-drive (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_propulsion) could be used to haul the loads from low orbits to higher orbit, and part of the load would be additional fuel for the ion-drive. It would take weeks to months for such a space-tug trip, but that's not long for space borne projects. A separate project like VentureStar or any of the other advanced next-generation designs could be used for human flight.
Oh, well... NASA has a long history of funding and then killing good space concepts. I think this will be no different. It's probably $500M wasted. In the mean-time, thank God for the Russian rockets!
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
Aren't ICBMs pretty much on suborbital trajectories to hit stationary ground targets?
And the ISS (for example) is orbiting about 400 KM @ about 7.7 KM/sec?
And the US is having a little bit of a hard time using purpose-built missiles to hit subsonic, in-atmosphere targets?
Not even considering the politics involved, I think it can be pretty hard enough...
"It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)