Slashdot Mirror
NASA Outsources ISS Resupply To SpaceX, Orbital
DynaSoar writes "NASA has signed two contracts with US commercial space ventures totaling $3.5 billion for resupply of the International Space Station. SpaceX will receive $1.6 billion for 12 flights of SpaceX's planned Dragon spacecraft and their Falcon 9 boosters. $1.9 billion goes to Orbital for eight flights of its Cygnus spacecraft riding its Taurus 2 boosters. Neither of the specified craft has ever flown. However, the proposed vehicles are under construction and based on proven technology, whereas NASA has often contracted with big aerospace companies for services using vehicles not yet even designed."
as the work will stay in the US hopefully creating employment(tho i hope the money doesnt end up in cayman isle accounts)
Up up and uh ooops.....
Hey, you think your house is cool?
Things like this is exactly why people are questioning our space program, we just seem to do things just to say we can. What really needs to happen is that taxpayers fund government research which releases *all* findings/blueprints/formulas/source/etc to the public (minus *real* national security issues, such nuclear weapons). Private businesses (such as Virgin Galactic and SpaceX) then can take the information and adapt them to create things thereby reducing taxpayer load. Our current system of hiding anything and everything under the guise of "national security" is what is making our space program fail, and outsourcing things to private companies does nothing to benefit the public.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
The article states that the contracts are valid through 2016. But, will this last when Obama comes in to office, with the expected cuts? I do realize that this is important for the future functions, but is it the biggest priority for the new president?
i mean, their technology is proven, is known to work and they can "do it" for cheap. why in ${deity}'s name did nasa sign a contract to use unproven, never used equipment operated by an unproven staff?
or why not go with arianespace if usa right-wingers get sick at the idea of paying the russian?
personally, i smell some sort of ... 'money pit' (is this the right expression?), some misplaced favoritism or even some political dogmatism instead of a will to 'get things done despite a limited budget' mentality.
In theory this is not much different than contracting rocket engines to Thiokol or communication systems to Motorola. In practice however this might prove to be a boon to NASA. Not only does it allow for the centralization of specific projects under one roof, it allows commercial companies to organize entire projects instead of merely building ships - I'm of the opinion private industry can organize and meet specific goals better than the government. With that NASA can allow private competition for public funds to improve space transportation systems; and therefore serve as the arbiter of their performance. On top of that NASA can further focus on its most important job: conducting experiments in space and preparing for manned missions to the Moon and beyond (if it ever does become feasible).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
$1.6 billion for 12 flights of SpaceX's planned Dragon spacecraft and their Falcon 9 boosters. $1.9 billion
Compared to the shuttle, it's a pretty damn good deal.
Supporting SpaceX/Orbital in this endeavour could be a game changer for the whole space industry. SpaceX is charging half of going rate for launches. Once they get flying regularly, NASA and commercial projects will be able to spend more on satellites and less on launching which means more spacecraft, science, and bandwidth.
Why don't we privatize our armed forces next..
Hehe, you don't read the paper much do you? There's a whole lot of contracted "security" firms in Iraq right now being paid by the US government. You might remember some of them were running a prison.. you might remember the atrocities. Ya.
Anyway, space tourism will pay for itself.. give it time.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Boeing/Lockheed/Thiokol initially only charged 1/2 the final rate too. What will the actual bill from SpaceX be, once they can suck at the govt's teat?
Nope..it won't. Using tax payer money to subsidize some sort of cosmic carnival ride with no public benefit is a joke. It's not the kind of jobs the world needs...unless you perhaps you think we ought to go back to building pyramids or something
Umm.. about the only people who are doing space tourism is the russians.. and they are doing it to subsidize their national space program. Maybe soon we'll see Virgin Galactic doing some suborbital space tourism.. and that's being done without a nickle of tax payer funds. So, what, exactly, are you on about?
How we know is more important than what we know.
Please provide us with the most recent scientific breakthrough not carried out by a government funded lab or subsidized university.
Don't worry. We'll wait.
You see, no corporation does anything beyond what's sensible to make a profit. And often that thing is actually detrimental to society without proper regulation, dependent on your definition of progress, and no company could survive the lawsuits if they focused on pure R&D instead of R&D designed to deliver a product for sale. Imagine a company formed for fusion reactor research, promising little to no chance of return for billions of dollars of investment. It wouldn't get off the ground, and would be the laughingstock of wall street. In this case, they are refining rocket technology, not inventing it.
Good science only happens when you throw huge amounts of money into pure research. Engineering happens trying to solve problems, but not advances in science. The government doesn't force people to research anything, but it does give out wads of cash for things it wants, like the technology found in Predator drones. This is because problems are now extraordinarily complicated and require huge investments to be solved. That's not to say there aren't rare exceptions... and definitely not to say that agencies like NASA aren't in need of serious restructuring. But for the most part, it's government funded research that provides modern technology.
Also, you're totally wrong about homeland security. It's funded billions of dollars for advanced aerospace research, but to large corporations instead of backyard enthusiasts.
Why should anyone complain about this? For all of his other faults, the Bush administration has given us some great new units of federal spending that we can use the same way we measure storage capacity with "libraries of congress". Why think in terms of millions or billions or even trillions, when we can say that this new NASA contract is only .005 TARPs, 0.00583 Iraq wars, 0.014 Katrinas, 0.00875 Medicare Prescription Drugs, and 0.0175 Farm bailouts.
It's chump change!
This is my sig.
I've always been a big Robert Heinlein fan, and the character of D.D. Harriman was particularly fun to imagine.
With this, it looks like Bob's vision of commercial space flight is finally starting to stretch to the plateau that he saw. I'm more than excited: maybe this means that that elusive space elevator is possible too? Oh, not by the same people, but hey! Maybe that's the next step.
In any case, kudos to the two companies. Thanks for seeing Mr. Heinlein's vision come true.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. ~~ Hunter S. Thompson
What?!! You think building pyramids will get people to space?
When you say "no public benefit", I think you forgot to finish the sentence properly, you missed out the "that I know of" bit. It's a very narrow mind that assumes nothing exists beyond it's own knowledge. I would say that kind of mind doesn't serve the public one bit, but thinking about it, I've been to macdonalds.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
It doesn't sound any different than Lockheed or NGC getting $3 billion. The concept drawings from any of these companies are equally far from the real thing. Maybe the CEO of SpaceX is worth a little more than the Lockheed CEO. It's not the populist access to space we envisioned 5 years ago. We only think it is because Elon Musk says so.
Boeing/Lockheed/Thiokol initially only charged 1/2 the final rate too. What will the actual bill from SpaceX be, once they can suck at the govt's teat?
One big difference is that Boeing/Lockheed/Thiokol have cost-plus contracts, where if you increase the final bill you make more money. SpaceX and Orbital have fixed-price contracts, where if SpaceX or Orbital's cost estimates are too low, the companies eat the extra cost; on the other hand, if the companies figure out ways to do things more efficiently, they get more of a profit. Doing space launches under this sort of arrangement is almost unprecedented for NASA, and hopefully something we'll see much more of in the future.
Name "One" important science discovery from the ISS.
It's a joke. It's a zillion times cheaper to do research on earth. Putting people into space for no other reason than putting people into space is a little silly. We've proven it can be done 40 years ago, but created this stupid idea that we need to keep doing it...at tremendous expense..for pretty much no other reason than National Pride. That's why it's like the Pyramids. Making it bigger is criminally idiotic. Unfortunately, it's probably gonna take another few generations until the mankind figures this out.
Our biggest problem for the planet is our population. Not putting 5 or 6 people into orbit so they can go on speaking tours and write a book.
I'm trying desperately to see a coherent argument here. Are you complaining that your tax dollars are being squandered.. cause, ya know, that's what governments do. If you're pissed at the cost of ISS, maybe you shouldn't take a look at the national budget any time soon. If you're all about scientific research, maybe you shouldn't look at the kind of research the NSF chooses to fund. I'm still trying to understand what any of this has to do with space tourism. Or are you basically saying that people shouldn't be free to pursue goals that you consider stupid?
How we know is more important than what we know.
Woohoo, now we can have SPACE truckers!
It's a very narrow mind that assumes nothing exists beyond it's own knowledge. I would say that kind of mind doesn't serve the public one bit
The problem with that argument is you can use it to justify anything. At some point you need to exercise that thing between your ears.
Einstein did his work with a few books and paper and pencil, and we haven't gotten to the bottom of that in over 100 years. NASA uses billions of dollars to launch Paper Airplanes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origami_airplane_launched_from_space
If you refuse to question anything NASA does, then you'll get just what you deserve.... 10 billion dollars to burn up a bunch of Paper Airplanes.
For anyone looking for more info, here's some handy links:
* RLV News's link round-up on the announcement
* Notes from the question-and-answer teleconference after the announcement
Some pasted notes from the teleconference which were missing from the article linked in the summary:
I guess I see the ISS as being a big floating resort in the sky....and not much else
One big difference is that Boeing/Lockheed/Thiokol have cost-plus contracts, where if you increase the final bill you make more money
They could mandate those contracts, because they could. They were already big players. SpaceX and Orbital aren't. Yet.
Their costs will go up to meet the inevitable requirement creep, and so will the final bill.
We need more players in the game. But let's not delude ourselves that the new kids will be that much better/cheaper, while retaining the same performance & safety factors.
Space ops is expensive.
Then you're one up on the politicians. The justification for the ISS was that it would keep Russian engineers busy making peaceful space stations rather than working on missile technology which they would most likely be selling to Iran and other nations that the US considers likely to result in destabilization of the middle east.. which is where all the oil is.. which is an important resource.. I don't know how much depth I need to get into here, you seem pretty naive. If the ISS can serve some sort of useful function beyond that, then yah, we're ahead of the game. Compared to the price of fighting a war with Russia, a few billion dropped on "science" and "international co-operation" is chump change. Or did you think space exploration was a national priority or something?
How we know is more important than what we know.
Their costs will go up to meet the inevitable requirement creep, and so will the final bill.
I think you may be missing something here... as I mentioned in my comment, this is a fixed-price contract, not a cost-plus contract. The requirements (deliver a certain quantity of tonnage to orbit) are already set, and the final price is already set. SpaceX and Orbital get money as they reach contracted development milestones and make actual cargo deliveries. If their costs go up, they either eat the cost and make less of a profit, or they don't make any more money at all.
But let's not delude ourselves that the new kids will be that much better/cheaper, while retaining the same performance & safety factors.
This is an interesting belief. Do you have any support for it? Do you disagree with NASA's readiness evaluation that SpaceX and Orbital are capable of doing this? Also, why does performance inherently matter, rather than cost/kg? And how much of a factor is safety on a cargo ship?
Space ops is expensive.
Actually, current space ops is really absurdly expensive. Companies like SpaceX are trying to make the cost simply expensive.
Wow, next think you know we might be using public taxpayer money to buy privately-built cars and seats on commercially-operated airliners for transporting government personnel!
We need more players in the game. But let's not delude ourselves that the new kids will be that much better/cheaper, while retaining the same performance & safety factors. Space ops is expensive.
Perhaps you should learn what's actually going on first. We have two bits of information. First, development of the current SpaceX vehicles on what is a paltry amount for space development, a mere few hundred million. Orbital too has a history of cheap development costs with the Pegasus and related launch vehicles. Second, these companies accept a more difficult type of contract than the typical cost plus contracts. I consider this a significant demonstration of intent. Cost plus means you pay the company in question to drive costs up as much as you will let them. High cost is a natural consequence.
I imagine that when NASA launches a Falcon 9, they will manage to spend hundreds of millions on themselves somehow as well (you know, planning it, managing it, quality control, etc). Fixed and sunk costs that are now considered to be in the Space Shuttle launch, but will now be transfered to SpaceX and Oribital Sciences.
In fact if I know my NASA, I bet in the end they will somehow make these launches even more expensive than the Shuttle is/was, especially with the economic downturn conveniently justifying practically any expenditure.
And no, sadly I am not making a joke.
Agree! Those costs don't include NASA's incredible infrastructure costs. Orbital and SpaceX have to create and pay for their own infrastructure (launch site and data communications). All they get is some real estate on a launch campus. In general, seems most folks in this thread have never worked on rockets or spacecraft. It really IS rocket science and it really IS hard... and it really IS very expensive. The hardest part about CRS is the business model... matching the loft capabilities of a brand new rocket (Orbital's Taurus-II and SpaceX's Falcon-9) to the unknown mass (weight) of a brand new SET of spacecraft while leaving room for the stuff that you get paid for (the cargo). Keep in mind the design teams have to develop a spacecraft that can accommodate unpressurized and pressurized cargo... with capabilities to accommodate a return vehicle as well. Also, in contrast to comments above, the government is not supplying anything other than specifications for operations near the ISS. Orbital and SpaceX have developed both rocket and spacecraft designs in-house with no help from NASA. I can't speak for SpaceX, but Orbital has some of the best rocket designers in the world. From http://www.orbital.com/SpaceLaunch/: "Combined, our space launch vehicles have launched over 115 satellites into orbit in the last 18 years." This does not include the interceptor or target systems developed by orbital (in-house). Watch out ULA (United Launch Alliance - Lockheed and Boeing's rocket business) there's some new kids on the block ;-)
Its funny how there is now written law to say that you have to pay taxes (people asked judges to confirm this) and there has been no provided proof by the IRS.
Yet, the threat of FBI and SWAT teams does nicely to co-erce people into paying. Even if those authorities know it to be false, they know that without taxes, their jobs are dead.
Its just like North Korea, the only reason the populace wont revolt, is that most of it 'works' for the state, thus getting benefits such as education, and food.
Ironically, none of the populations of USA's income taxes are used for ANY thing beneficial, ie... its all paid into interest rate debt payments to banks. Its the other indirect taxes and corporate taxes that fund the govts activities.
Bottom line, income taxes arent needed. Its a falacy.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
I suppose that it depends on your opinion of the importance of prolonged human presence in space... Namely the Moon. I'm only guessing, but I would venture to guess that there will be permanent bases (maybe military) on the Moon within the next 50 years. Much bio research has been done on the ISS that will support extended stays on the Moon (or in microgravity in general).
And that's pointless. If you can take several months to slow down your velocity without needing to do high-speed aerobraking, you don't need ANY heat shielding. Great science there.
pull ---- whoommph!---- whoommph! ---- nothing!
honestly, this never happened to me before.
Lets take those in order:
There are a lot of reasons to believe SpaceX will have a hard time meeting their commitments and to disagree with NASA's assesment - take their success rate to date. Or take the fact that both the booster and capsule being contracted for are nearly completely vaporware. (The article summary misleads you somewhat - yes, NASA has in the past contracted for new rockets from companies with established track records. A quality SpaceX lacks in spades.)
Why does performance matter rather than raw cost/kg, are you kidding me? Do you buy a computer by using only raw cost? Or anything else of significant value? If nothing else, a key performance metric is meeting schedule goals because the ISS requires resupply and crew rotation on a regular basis - and meeting schedule goals is again something that SpaceX has demonstrated an inability to do. (To be fair, that's only so far as we know - because after the first launch, they stopped announcing them significantly in advance. To me, that's an ominous sign.)
Safety - again, you have to be kidding me. These are manned ships. And even if they weren't, safety matters on launch, and again on docking with the ISS.
There are a lot of reasons to believe SpaceX will have a hard time meeting their commitments and to disagree with NASA's assesment - take their success rate to date.
...
Thankfully, the people at NASA have more sophisticated means of evaluation that this...
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
One way to save costs would be to let our allies in on our research. If India and Japan got the lead over china in space research it might indirectly help us. Also it would help us by cutting costs. Personally, I feel that nasa should become more like the FAA, in that it regulates companies doing business in space. Rather than doing actual launching itself. That way less people on government payroll the better.
What?!! You think building pyramids will get people to space?
Yeah. I mean obviously they're landing pads, not space ships.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Why does performance matter rather than raw cost/kg, are you kidding me? Do you buy a computer by using only raw cost?
No, but I generally ship cargo based on raw cost/kg, which is exactly what the current announcement is for.
Safety - again, you have to be kidding me. These are manned ships.
No they aren't. I think you're thinking of COTS-D, which has nothing to do with the recent announcement.
"The problem with that argument is you can use it to justify anything"
Anything that you can think of. I can think of things where you can't use that argument against... such as any argument that doesn't include "all knowing" claims like your "no public benefit" claim.
"NASA uses billions of dollars to launch Paper Airplanes"
And here we have the answer... of course you can't think of any public benefits if you only know about *one* thing that they've done, which is launching a paper airplane. (hint: they've done more than one thing!)
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia