Slashdot Mirror
Lockheed Gets $485M From NASA To Create MAVEN Craft
coondoggie writes to tell us that Lockheed Martin has landed a $485 million contract to create the spacecraft for NASA's MAVEN (Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN) project. "MAVEN is the second mission in NASA's Mars Scout Program — a series of small, low-cost, principal investigator-led missions to the Red Planet, NASA said. The Phoenix Mars Lander was the first mission under the program. Lockheed Martin is the industry partner on the Phoenix mission. It designed and built the spacecraft, and also provided flight operations and currently surface operations for the lander. The mission has been extended through Sept. 30, 2008."
It's MAVEN (In the article), not MAVAN (which is in the title)
Maybe take a couple seconds for just a smidge of proofreading, occasionally, before actually posting them articles.
I sure hope they choose the metric system!
Wait, or was that standard...
Ah whatever, it'll fly anyway.
Forget that MAVAN shit. If you're ready to part with gas, grass, or ass, you can ride in MYVAN for free.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Hope Lockhead's repository has all the necessary jars, or this build is gonna fail hard. I mean, maven's okay for what I do, but I would hope that for 480 million, they could come up with something a bit nicer.
We all know that the overpaid Slashdot editors can't be bothered with correcting the text of the submissions, much less to check the links in the submission. But I have not seen, so far, that they would manage to get the title wrong, too!?
For the record, at this moment the title of this story reads "Lockheed Gets $485M From NASA To Create MAVAN Craft".
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
So, we're not going to have a highly publicized 6 month bid process, and then give it to the company with the better plane, and then take it away because the local company is crying about sour grapes? And then have them both re-bid, and then cancel that project because it looks again like the company that start with a B is starting ti whine AGAIN because they just can't compete in the competitive market because their damn plane just isn't good enough. So we scrap the whole damn idea till "later" and make our guys fly around in 30 year old gas filled bombs with outdated electronics hoping that one doesn't fuckin' blow up over a residential area?
What's the fun in that? I didn't get a notice to bid! I'm going to congress!
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
NASA this week awarded Lockheed Martin a $485 million contract to design, build and operate the spacecraft for NASA's 2013 space mission known as Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN (MAVEN) program.
I would've done it for $420 million, but they never asked.
I wouldn't be surprised if some shill zings me as off-topic or inflammatory, but...
Is this the *same* outfit that got hundreds of millions, if not *billions* for the widely-ridiculed Bertholf National Security Cutter widely derided as a boondoggle and which might not see more copies built because that outfit couldn't coordinate with subcontractors to get the damned communications systems' TEMPEST security wiring in place?
Ok... how can *i* get just $50,000 of that cash without killing, blackmailing, or doing seances and runes?
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
It's in comparison to the older programs such as Viking, Galileo, and Cassini, which cost several billion each in current dollars (but which did their jobs incredibly well). The move to smaller, faster, cheaper followed the loss of the Mars Observer.
What NASA management didn't factor into smaller, faster, cheaper is that you can normally pick only two of the three.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
So, what's the telephone area code for the moon, Mr. Anonymous?
Oh, there is none? Why, because nobody has been there for 40 years. The United States does not have the competence to operate space research.
Bruce Perens.
kissed up to the current office holders ..which just so happens to be the Republcians.
It's irrational to consider that the United States, in its current condition, could or should operate a Mars mission.
It's irrational to criticize the pursuit of science and discovery, while being the co-founder of worthy initiatives which promote openness for the purposes of advancing mankind. Call me crazy, but I don't think America's "current condition" should derail established efforts towards these scientific goals.
If you want to argue that sending the money to Lockheed Martin is a mistake, then that's fine. I've heard much criticism of their organization from reputable associates and I tend to believe that there's is a bad work environment from these anecdotes. However, suggesting that NASA doesn't deserve the shoestring budgets that they receive then in the name of advancing mankind beyond the reaches of Earth's atmosphere, I have to humbly disagree.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
I think they picked the wrong subcontractor to build the prototype.
Seems like me with my student loans... I owe so God damned much, why not just buy this second SLI video card? It's not like $300 is going to make a noticeable dent in my loans and getting a new video card would be REALLY fun!
We figured out a long time ago that it's easier to elect seven judges than to elect 132 legislators.
By rights, we really should have a permanent base on the moon by now, and should have already put somebody on Mars. But unfortunately, that wasn't the first priority for the United States. We want to fight stupid wars with insignificant countries. We want 1% of the population to essentially own the rest, and we're willing to manipulate the economy to make that more and more the case every day.
This is not a country that does great things any longer. It's not been one since 1969. It's time to stop pretending.
And don't tell me that Obama will fix this. He can't win.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Thread of the subject's contractor (Lockheed)
While I'm grateful for one Admiral Elmo Zumwalt for making changes that made Navy life better before I joined (well, a number of admirals hated his guts, and a number he had to fire, IIRC), I am glad it appears the DDG-1000 design is not going to see too many more copies. It is just an ungainly appearance, un-naval looking, and it seems more navies using Aegis want the DDG-51 look (for now...). Every time i LOOKED at the DDG-1000 my stomach growled. It's too bad the boondoggle of a project even got programmed funding. Now, that's money partly wasted, tho *some* of the knowledge gained *might* be back fitted to the DDG-51 class/DDG-9x+ variants. But, the gun system apparently is too large to back fit.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Seems like me with my student loans... I owe so God damned much, why not just-
Wait a minute...
No, not that one. This one.
Oh, wait, scratch that. It will look completely different and won't use any previous research. I mean they already spent some money to come up with a new acronym, so why not go all the way?
Hey, space exploration is fine - that's actually advancing the state of humanity. What ISN'T fine is spending 20% of the budget JUST ON ONE TINY FUCKING COUNTRY, and that's in addition to the *regular* military spending!
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
congress has issues with spending a couple of hundred millions making sure that a capsule is ready by end of 2010. Amazing.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If you are talking about Bush, you are right. But the United States ? Does not have the competences? Madness. I think what is lacking here is profit. There is no profit involved in going to the moon thus, they lost interest. Maybe if they were people to democratize on the moon ... But I digress
He had a baseball bat, and I was tied to a chair. Pissing him off was the smart thing to do. - Max Payne
Hell, in the Martian atmosphere, all you really need for this kind of stuff is a collapsible, inflatable R100, the 3D solar panels that high-schooler DID design, and some ultra-light electric motors.
Did you know they have 60mph winds on Mars ?
The three you can only pick two of are better, faster and cheaper. The point of the program is that given that even the best probes have quite a high failure rate, it's not worth trying to engineer everything to be "perfect"; it's better to send three cheap probes and accept that one of them will fail than one expensive probe that has a substantial chance of failing and losing everything.
I am trolling
Oh, there is none? Why, because nobody has been there for 40 years. The United States does not have the competence to operate space research.
Forty years ago the US proved humans could do it, and that it wasn't a complete freak accident. Who else has gone there? The russians? The europeans? The chinese? Anyone else? Oh that's right, nobody. Not because we're so primitive that we couldn't, but because we still haven't figured out a good reason for doing so, except to do so. He3 for the imaginary fusion reactor? Telescopes that do just fine in orbit or with advances in technology on earth's surface? The moon is pretty much a big rock, Mars is the interesting place to be though for now I think we're better off with probes. Supporting people up there would take a whole other level of resources than the robots that survive on next to nothing.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The R100 plan is ideal for exactly those sorts of conditions. The original actually did fly through some really nasty storms - quite possibly 60mph or worse - and modern materials and building techniques should provide vastly superior structural strength. The superior shape to modern blimps means you should be able to fly directly into 60mph winds, as you have a far and away lower profile. For the same reason, side winds should be much less of a threat. However, the R100 is usually also described as much stronger and lighter than the Zeppelins (which were tough enough to pose a serious threat to the RAF), suggesting that even the whirlwinds that crop up should not be a serious threat. If you can survive high-speed machine-gun bullets, you can probably survive a sandstorm - at least, so long as you're high up enough to avoid the worst. You can't ride over it entirely, but all you need is a low enough density that you're not having an entire side panel sand-blasted out of existence.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The nice thing about Open Source is that it doesn't require billion-dollar budgets.
Wheeler might disagree with that, albeit the 'budgets' are largely time-based via volunteer effort or corporate-based via organizations who realize sharing software is cheaper than allowing it to be hoarded.
This is not a country that does great things any longer.
You might be right about that, but I find fault in the logic that we shouldn't fund NASA because they didn't do much during the last 40 years. You complain about stupid wars, but what they experienced in 1969 was the culmination of an effort to win the mother of "stupid wars". Whether the Russians or Communists were significant or not is up for debate, but the Cold, Korean, and Vietnam Wars were all unnecessary pissing contests and as a result of that American piss made it to the Moon.
If you are going to blame anything for the lack of "accomplishments" of NASA for the last 40 year, blame the lack of a structured plan when they hit the ground running in the 1960s. Since then --- technology has advanced, discoveries have been made, and science has caught up to the engineering accomplishment of putting a man on the moon. By suggesting that NASA be defunded, you are suggesting that everything during the last 40 years has been a waste.
By rights, we really should have a permanent base on the moon by now, and should have already put somebody on Mars.
If you consider that 2 of the 17 Apollo flight missions were failures and that 2 of 4 Space Shuttles have blown up (with 120+ successful mission), you'd realize that working in space is *really* hard and risky. Do you recall the challenges of Skylab in the early 70s when NASA had a pair of booster rockets that it needed something to do with? This was a far cry from what ISS is today. So, I would argue that the past 40 years have been instrumental towards getting us to where are today... which is in the position to *consider* a trip to Mars 20 years from now. However, without the groundwork that this and other missions have laid, it will never happen. Because the most important thing for a human Mars mission is that he (or she) doesn't die there. I have no doubt that any attempts in the 80s or 90s to customize a Saturn V with a crew vehicle destined for Mars would have resulted in such a death. In 20 years, though, I think technology exists that will enable such an astronaut to survive.
And the "present American's condition" cares very little about what was going on in the 1960s or what will be going on in the 2030s.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
It's irrational to make such a claim when we are currently operating *multiple* Mars missions. (Two rovers, one stationary lander, and two orbiters.)
We learned how to make good robots.
I think Europe and Japan will make some progress. The U.S. is going to Europe for its next manned vehicle, a man-capable version of the Jules Verne.
Bruce Perens.
It's not very clear to me that we learned a lot about manned missions since 1969.
Telescopes, rovers, and orbiters have yielded good knowledge. No?
Orion *is* a big Apollo lander. I recall that it will be capable of landing 3 man on the surface (a 50% increase!). If you were looking for an alternative type of lander, maybe its possible that they got it right in the 60s. On Earth, we the vehicles that are capable of landing include have helicopters and airplanes and not much else. And these don't seen like good ideas to me. Maybe this? The big improvement, though, is Ares V which should enable us to do a big more than just flying to the Moon or Mars and back. With the materials that we'll be able to bring things will get real exciting (you just wait).
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
For Christ's sake, even as much as I love the idea of space exploration, I totally agree for financial reasons only. Has anybody else seen the national debt lately? While there are plenty of better things to cut, we do have to start somewhere.
A neutral communications medium is essential. It is the basis of science, by which humankind should decide what is true.
Despite the ad-selling headlines you've apparently been reading, the "current condition" of the United States is neither desperate nor hopeless.
We have a stable republican government, a massive GDP, an industrious and reasonably well-educated work force, solid infrastructure (utilities, transportation, commerce, etc.), a strong university-based R&D system awash in basic science available to exploit, and a long tradition of creatively overcoming both internal and external challenges.
The financials have been rocky of late, sure, which makes this a great time to invest (remember, it's buy low, sell high - now is "low" relative to last year (though not 2006), so I'm buying). I sold Lockheed Martin stock in February at just over $110 a share, and it closed today slightly higher than my selling price. Darn it.
What is irrational is your belief that the USA is suddenly unable to operate all of the successful space missions that we are currently operating.
I keep thinking of "Project Hoyven Maven" from The Simpsons ;)=
Half a billion dollars will be the change they lost behind the couch once Paulson finishes bailing out his buddies.
I didn't get any farther than that before turning off the fantasy channel.
Bruce Perens.
Correct me if I'm wrong, because this is an interesting topic, but to summarize your post: "Aesthetics are more important than stealthiness of ships at sea from radar." There are other failures from the program, but you bring up its looks instead.
If you believe our government is unstable, then you have my sympathy.
There were lots of good reasons to continue to go there, #1 of them being getting the human race out of the situation of being bound to one planet with its fragile ecosystem.
Almost any disaster here on earth some would survive in deep bunkers, probably more than on an offworld base. If earth is utterly destroyed, we're centuries away from a self-sustaining base anywhere else. Not where we can just go for a vacation trip with pre-dropped resources, but with people and machinery to produce everything themselves. Check out the few attempts that have been made at making a closed ecosystem, which even with huge structures have had issues with food amounts, power, oxygen levels and so on. And that's not counting many of the hard problems like bringing and constructing it on the moon/Mars, the low gravity, the lack of magnetosphere, the added distance from the Sun in case of Mars, being able to repair and renew it and so on. Should we get there? Yes. Is mankind in any immidiate danger if we don't? I don't think so, it's 65 million years since the dino-killer so another thousand years or so won't really matter. Nukes are pretty powerful but they're not enough to eradicate all of mankind.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Aren't we supposed to go to Titan? Nobody reads Stephen Baxter anymore? :)
I disagree. We are spending a c*apload of money in fixing the bull$hit that this administration has done for the past 8 years. Why does science have to suffer? Start cutting down paychecks and jobs in D.C. and subsidies to big oil and tobacco companies.
Absolutely those subsidies should be gone, I agree one-hundred percent. Of course, so should a thousand-and-one other things too. The problem is that the US is burning the candle at both ends by spending like there's no tomorrow. In reality, not only is there a tomorrow, but a whole lot more of them after that. Science funding is the last on my list of things to cut, but it's on the list nonetheless.
A neutral communications medium is essential. It is the basis of science, by which humankind should decide what is true.
I know what the point of the program is. NASA has been notoriously bad at making thosee goals, which is why I kept the 'pick two' mantra within their own range of options. They miss budget targets and milestone and launch dates (even when cutting corners), and in some cases have only made the 'smaller' requirement by cutting instruments out to make the launch weight or the schedule.
I'd be interested in a few of the old super-probes which, while certainly expensive and with their own variable calendars, generally were handled more carefully and returned tremendously valuable data at a rate that I think is at least cost-competitive with the machine-gun approach at which we've been sending out probes. We lose a little in flexibility, but I'm not sure that's such a big cost given the timescales over which either project scale works.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
If the R101 is in any shape to support anything, it's the ground. Obviously, with the R100 design, you'd need a much larger volume (but hydrogen is still vastly lighter than the CO2 of Martian air), a much lower mass (the R100 was designed to support a large human crew, aviation fuel and gigantic engines, and had a frame made of steel and aluminium as I recall, whereas a UAV version for unmanned Martian missions needs a few tens of pounds of payload, solar panels and a few light electric motors, and a frame of carbon fibre with airgel struts should be solid enough for such purposes). The R100 was also much much lighter than Terran air. It supported its own weight, but at significant (for the time) altitude. Notice I'm talking about an airship that actually IS comparable in size to the R100, not something scaled down the way the payload is. Nothing, when compressed, doesn't take up much space, and the lower air pressure of Mars means that the air bags would be filled with mostly nothing. All you need to store is the hydrogen gas under pressure. As per the Archimedes Diver, the relative pressure in the airship can be used to control altitude, so long as the containment is adequate. For those familiar with the device, it is clear you don't NEED to shed the gas used for buoyancy so long as pressure is controllable. In consequence, you only need to ship enough to inflate the device, you don't need to ship any for re-inflating later. Other factors include temperature. So long as the relative temperature of the hydrogen is high, you get extra volume and therefore extra buoyancy. (You only need to displace the airship's mass to float, and displacing more is what makes you rise until the relative air pressure means you are only displacing an equal amount. Which is how you can tell that anything that can handle 20,000 or so feet above mean sea level must be far lighter than the air displaced at ground level and not just supporting its own weight (which implies a ground level measurement). A black surface (that ultra-black stuff reported on Slashdot not too long ago, for example) should be handy for that, as would any heating elements. Not much risk of fire if there's not much oxygen, so frankly you might as well push such a design to the limits of the material. And that's the key thing. The material. You need gas bags - basically floatation bladders no different from those in fish - that can swell sufficiently to allow maximum altitude but be strong enough to support Archimedian descent through pressure rather than through deflation. The latter requirement also takes care of surviving the storms, as any material strong enough to handle the pressure from the inside is strong enough to handle the buffeting from the outside. And, yes, you would need a huge airship to support even a small mass, due to the lower air pressures involved. But, frankly, that's the only engineering problem I can see. The rest was mastered by humans a century ago and by evolution two billion years ago.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
http:www.Xanga.com/avenueoflight
check out: "The Lucifer Project" listed on my site.
The ships can simultaneously be stealthy and attractive. One example: every navy has standards and many have differentiation in appearances due to national and architectural and service input. Anyway, while i am happy th SK navy and the JMSDF have formidable ships, i wish the SK would effectively or economically find a way to to suck up or give in to political reasons resulting in the King Sejong The Great looking like another Burke clone. SK can do BETTER than THAT. Atago is sexier than DDG-8+.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Galileo lost a huge amount of data because its high-gain antenna was never usable, considerably reducing the return on the more than $1 billion invested in it. Mars Observer was simply lost, $800 million down the drain. When you put all of your eggs into one probe, a single mistake destroys an enormous amount. Using more, smaller probes reduces the risks and ultimately either costs the same or saves money. A gain in flexibility is just a bonus.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.