Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Buying Private Companies' Suborbital Rocket Flights

Posted by timothy on from the dc-we-have-a-problem dept.

FleaPlus writes "NASA is spending a total of $475,000, split between Masten Space Systems and John Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace, for a series of seven test flights of the companies' reusable suborbital rockets over the next several months, going to altitudes as high as 25 miles. NASA's goal is to foster a more cost-effective and flexible way to conduct microgravity and upper-atmosphere research. Jeff Bezos's suborbital spaceflight company Blue Origin has also been making steady progress this year on their $3.7M contract to test pusher-escape system and composite pressure vessel technologies, which NASA is interested in for orbital spaceflight."

6 of 60 comments (clear)

  1. Pay per flight by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What makes this more interesting is that NASA won't actually be paying for the flights until they have flown successfully, and although Armadillo and Masten have been working towards the kind of capability NASA wants, they've mostly been plotting their own course, which means NASA has actually bought something here without specifying the requirements in infinite detail - like they usually do.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Pay per flight by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All the time. The problem is that normally no-one cares because the press is focused on the pork. This is one of the many initiatives that NASA does with "scraps".

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Pay per flight by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      NASA won't actually be paying for the flights until they have flown successfully

      NASA has actually bought something here without specifying the requirements in infinite detail

      Basically undoing the two things (in decreasing order of importance) that have caused so many problems and budget problems in the past.

      The ridiculously detailed specifications not only meant the developer was highly constrained, it virtually guarantees that what you get is going to be a one-off made of fully custom parts which means ridiculous cost.

      But when you hand that specification to the contractor, along with mega-bucks for them to develop it, then you virtually guarantee that the contractor will be late and then basically dare you not to send good money after bad, and admit you wasted mega-bucks.

      I'd heard that part of the new plan for NASA involved changing how they did procurement -- paying for results, not for development. I'm highly excited to see it put into action.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  2. $475,000 by guanxi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    $475,000

    Not even a bump on a decimal point on a rounding error in NASA's budget. Signifies nothing.

  3. Re:Commercial Payload Companies by insufflate10mg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How can someone just whip out a "commercial satellite bus" business without having a launch vehicle? I'm sure as soon as the half-dozen companies you referenced (plus more that will inevitably be created) are fully functional, "payload launching" will be the next large commercial step.

  4. Re:Commercial Payload Companies by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'll be impressed when the rockets have more capacity than the surface-to-air missiles that were in use during the Vietnam War.

    Why? Different tools for different jobs. Sure, I'd be impressed if your car could launch into orbit or shoot down fighter jets. But those tasks aren't the point of your car.