Slashdot Mirror
NASA Picks 5 Firms To Work On LEO Tech
Gary W. Longsine writes "Five contracts have been awarded by NASA today, to firms exploring different aspects of the effort to develop a private launch industry for people to low earth orbit. Today's winners include: Sierra Nevada Corp (aka 'SpaceDev') for the Dream Chaser; Boeing in cooperation with Bigelow on a capsule design; United Launch Alliance (Boeing and Lockheed Martin) to explore safety issues related to upgrading Atlas and Delta rockets to human flight safety standards; Blue Origin to build a launch escape system; and Paragon Space Development Corp for 'air vitalization' (aka life support).
Will the forecast $6 Billion allocation over five years be enough to inspire private industry to develop not one, but two human rated launch systems (a capsule, and the lifting body Dream Chaser)? NASA clearly wants competition in the private market, so they seek more than one vendor."
They were already given a contract to develop the Falcon and Dragon for use with delivering cargo to the ISS. See this (now out of date) wikipedia entry on NASA's COTS program for more information.
Right now the Delta and Atlas rocket are the closest thing we have to a man-rated rocket after the shuttle retires, so it only makes sense that NASA would look into this route. NASA is very excited about what SpaceX is doing and once the Falcon 9 proves itself with unmanned cargo, I have no doubt that they will look into getting it man-rated.
Don't forget to add "if you break our cargo, you pay for it."
If you want space transport to work like a trucking business, you should pay for it the way you pay a trucking business.
If you want space transport to work like a bottomless money black hole, you should fund it like a bottomless money black hole.
You get what you pay for, and what you get depends on *how* you pay.
Just so.
Competition would have been offering two (or three or four or more) companies contracts for each general category of hardware (launcher, capsule, etc).
Picking one company for each piece of hardware is just handing money to someone and saying "Please don't just piss this money away on hookers and coke!".
Alternatively, of course, they could have done it the way the military does it - release the specs, allow anyone to enter a design, and hold trials. The design that wins, gets the contract.
Or the way that the military handles big-ticket items - same as above, but pay for development of the two or three most promising designs, then hold the trials.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
NASA has made no such choice, and Falcon 9/Dragon have been built to all published NASA man-rating standards. The problem is, NASA is perfectly willing to publish more standards later if they see fit. Ya know how developing software with incomplete specifications is hard? Try rockets.
How we know is more important than what we know.