Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Outsources ISS Resupply To SpaceX, Orbital

Posted by kdawson on from the minding-the-gap dept.

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."

12 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. Problems by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. 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.
    2. Re:Problems by davolfman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Anything made under government contract for its design should logically be considered "work for hire" and be public domain by default. That's the assertion I'm going to make.

    3. 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.
  2. 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

  3. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  4. Hell of a deal by tripmine · · Score: 4, Informative

    $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.

    1. Re:Hell of a deal by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not bad considering it costs $450 million per shuttle launch.

      http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html

      Q. How much does it cost to launch a Space Shuttle?

      A. The average cost to launch a Space Shuttle is about $450 million per mission.

    2. Re:Hell of a deal by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

      under the current contract SpaceX is charging a fixed price of $133 million per flight,

      Under the current contract, SpaceX is selling about 10% of their payload for 12 flights for $133 million. Remember, they're only promising to deliver 20 tons over 12 flights, NOT the 240 tons they'll be pushing into space in those 12 flights.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  5. The big deal here: launch costs getting cut in 1/2 by rmcclelland · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  6. Science by copponex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re:The big deal here: launch costs getting cut in by FleaPlus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.