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."
They have a reliable and well tested system, why doesn't NASA use that?
The latest Slashdot meme.
If private industry can come up with a spacecraft that can meet the needs from 2010 to 2014, why shouldn't it meet the needs from 2014 forward?
Isn't this ust a reiteration of the X-Prize?
(by a different entity)
Purple, because ice cream has no bones.
And Nasa launched the last of its deep space probes...
... helium? Something like that...
Sadly, I worry that might well be true.
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?
And wasn't there a story about the moon being made not of cheese but of some kind of minable
(wanders off to google for a bit)
I am a leaf on the wind
Frickin' finally. This is possibly the best possibly future for the public space agencies - fund research and development through a combination of grants and prizes, and not actually work on the problems themselves. They've done good work in the past, but they've simply become too large and inefficient, and that's exactly what privitisation is best at combating. This is very good news for people looking towards the future of space exploration, exploitation and colonisation
wouldn't this make a fantastic project for science departments in universities? It seems like it would be a great connection for some venture capitalist and NASA to create several design centers that would share all information and create a plan that would have as its goal to be inexpensive, creative, and efficient. It's probably a pipe-dream, but it would be an incredible way to invigorate science work in this country at all levels, to engage funding in educational institutions, and likely earn an incredible profit down the road.
Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
NASA already has an extremely well-tested and effective vehicle. The Space Shuttle is a weak and complex design that replaced a great and simple design.
For less than $500 million NASA could replace the Apollo program 1960's computers (on board and ground control) and develop a new hatch to allow the Apollo command module to connect to the Space Station. Beyond that, just mass produce Saturn 5's and Command/Lander modules.
This new competition is a Feel Good(TM) program that hands out money to the contractors, when NASA has already done the job.
Instead of being an administration, by administrators, for administrators, with political goals, perhaps it would be better if NASA was replaced by an organisation run by scientists for scientists, with scientific goals. If the scientists saw the money as research funds they'd probably treat it with more respect and make sure they (1) attacked scientific goals and (2) got their money's worth.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
The need for competition is best exemplified by the American automobile industry. The Ford Mustang of 2006 (after nearly 26 years of intense competition with Japanese automobiles like the Honda Prelude) is vastly superior in quality to the Ford Mustang of 1980.
Based on the 26 years of quality improvements in American automobiles due to Japanese competition, we can surmise that opening the NASA contracts to non-American Western companies will likely accelerate space-vehicle development to such an extent that, by 2032 (i.e., 26 years later), the Western allies will launch the first intersellar starship, powered by warp drive and armed with phase cannons. From 2032, the Western alliance has 31 years before first contact in 2063 -- with the Vulcans.
From a mathematical standpoint - it doesn't matter when the deaths occured, only that they did occur. Yours is an emotional argument, not an engineering one.
That's just the thing - they haven't ironed all the bugs out. In the 80 odd flights to date, there is a continuing pattern of problems and failures. There have been at *least* four extremely near misses. (Read this report on landing accidents for example. Then consider that none of the launch accidents or on orbit accidents are covered.) Then consider this: Between Challenger and Columbia - the Shuttle flew more flights than Soyuz has in it's entire history. There have been eight flights of the latest (TMA) mark of Soyuz - four of which have had significant safety problems.
Or, in short; Soyuz has a long history of problems, problems equal to or greater than the ignored warnings from the O-rings or the foam. Anyone who believes that Soyuz is significantly safer than Shuttle is deluding themselves.
Re: 'Lost in Space'. I've skimmed it, it's mostly bullshit. His facts are correct - but the assumptions going in are utter fantasy and the conclusions drawn are thus rendered nonsense. Among other things; he makes the common fanboy mistake of assuming 'NASA had vision during Apollo and lost it'. NASA, in the Apollo era, did just what it's doing today - executing the will of the Administration. Which, oddly enough, is exactly what it's supposed to do as a branch of the goverment.
Don't get wrong - I'm with you when it comes to space travel. I just choose not to delude myself with the 'NASA is evil and the cause of all our woes' meme.