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."

8 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. 2016? In Obama's Term. by perlhacker14 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  2. Re:Problems by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The world isn't a simple as you make it out to be. Patents and copyrights lock things up, but trade secrets lock them up even more. Government intervention to make people act against their own interests is a never ending spiral. There's no way to mandate that people do good science. It's interesting that you mention national security. Current legislation basically makes good science and engineering in rocketry illegal.. cause any improvement to a rocket is an improvement to the death count of a potential weapon using that rocket. I, personally, care more about the progress of rocketry than I care about the number of potential lives lost in a potential war fought with potential rocket-based weapons in the potential future, but other people think differently.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  3. Re:why not contract with the russians? by TimSSG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think it is an issue of redundancy; to have the ISS just depending on the Russians would be an issue. Now, I think they could have looked to the "arianespace", but I think Buy American is back into the default way the US Government does things. Tim S

  4. New Possibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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).

  5. Re:Problems by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, but there is nothing stopping them from swiping the plans for the rocket boosters and developing a few payload systems that could easily hit US shores with a dirty/chemical warhead. Technically, this would not result in massive retaliation. Technically, as we weren't nuked, but I have no idea how governments would react to this kind of attack. And frankly, if it was a terrorist/extremist group it would be just as bad I guess.

    Just look at Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks, minor attacks that launched major offensive strikes by the USA. And, a terrorist group with an ICBM? I doubt that would ever happen, about the closest would be North Korea but as far as we know they only have slightly long range misses, not ICBMs, and because North Korea is so poor, I doubt they would have the capability to build one especially with international pressure along with resource constraints. The main threat is a nuclear device by a terrorist/extremist group, something more akin to a "suitcase nuke" than a full ICBM.

    Either way, I'd really prefer it if our rocketry sciences weren't put into public domain

    ...But honestly, there is no accountability. Why should I pay taxes just for some pretty pictures of a distant galaxy? Why should I have to pay in part for a billion dollar exploration mission to Pluto? If the findings of both the scientific and rocketry aspects aren't put in the public domain, then its no better than paying for the president to have a billion dollar dinner, either way, no one but the government benefits from it. And really, that is the public sentiment about space exploration in 2008.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  6. Re:obama is gonna be happy by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's also a way to save our domestic space program from Nasa's ponderous bureaucracy while simultaneously breathing new life into it through many happy and willing contributors(probably an open source analogy in ere somewhere).

    Most importantly, outsourcing our space program to $CHEAP_NATION is even more shameful than outsourcing our other jobs!

  7. Re:Hell of a deal by gregbot9000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    NASA said it was looking for each selected team to deliver a minimum of 20 metric tons to the space station over the seven-year life of the contract

    At $1.6B for 20 metric tones per contract thats about $36,287 per pound. So it's actually a good deal if you take the worst cost estimate of the Shuttle running $40,000 a pound. And that the company only does the bare minimum. for the twelve launches for the Falcon 9 at $1.6B that comes out to $133M.

  8. Re:Science by ppanon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah you're clearly right. All that work done by the CDC and the NIH never amount to anything..

    --
    Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire