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."
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 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
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
It doesn't sound any different than Lockheed or NGC getting $3 billion.
As I've noted in another comment, the difference is that Lockheed/NGC have cost-plus contracts, while this is a fixed-price contract. Lockheed et al get more money if they go overbudget. SpaceX has to pay the cost if they go overbudget.
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.
Concept drawings? SpaceX's Falcon 9 has already been transported to Cape Canaveral, and will be fully assembled and vertical within the next week.
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:
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.
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.
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 ;-)