Slashdot Mirror


NASA Buying Private Companies' Suborbital Rocket Flights

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."

16 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 GlassHeart · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The other thing that is interesting is the "a total of $475,000." When was the last time NASA dealt in dollar amounts under a million?

    2. 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.
    3. 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
    4. Re:Pay per flight by lgw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The truely screwed up thing is: NASA only has the freedom to do this sort of thing with "scraps" - all the "real money" is earmarked, with congress saying "build this project using these contractors". NASA has become a project management/procurement organization, which is sad in its own right, but they're not even allowed to do that correctly.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Pay per flight by wiredlogic · · Score: 4, Informative

      When was the last time NASA dealt in dollar amounts under a million?

      The Navy launched the Clementine moon probe for ~$100K in 1994 and sparked the "Faster, Better, Cheaper" mantra within NASA. This freaked the space industry powerhouses because it threatened a significant reduction in the fat they could carve out of their contracts with the government if it took hold as an industry wide standard. Fortunately for them, some notable failed projects built around FBC led to the abandonment of that policy and the continued largess for publicly funded space programs.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  2. Commercial Payload Companies by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 4, Informative

    You know, it's kind of funny. Lately with all the hub-ub regarding the closure of the shuttle program, the small launch companies have been getting a ton of publicity. We have companies like SpaceX and Orbital working their way into the medium and heavy lift rocket arenas. We have Blue Origin, Masten, Armadillo, and a half-dozen other small rocket/sounding rocket/propulsion companies developing launch platforms for low gravity environments (moon, Mars) and suborbital flights. One thing that I can't seem to find a lot of, however, is small, commercial payload companies. There are definitely a few. Companies like Clyde Space for instance are starting to offer available payloads on cubesat buses. There are also companies like Interorbital Sciences that are trying to push the small payload/tubesat architecture. And, of course, there are dozens of startups competing for the rover portion of the GLXP. Nonetheless, I would like to see more small satellite companies start cropping up. It seems like there would be a market for a company that could develop a common, reliable, small payload bus (about 250 - 500 kg) that could guarantee a mission life of XX many years and a power base of XX many kW that customers could mount scientific payloads on to test technologies, gather a bit of data, whatever.

    I guess that I am surprised to see commercial launch companies getting so much publicity, while the market for commercial satellite buses remains so small. It would be cool to see a company do to satellites what SpaceX is trying to do the launch market. Surely some science communities out there would pay to gather 0 g data for some field or another...

    1. 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.

    2. Re:Commercial Payload Companies by quanticle · · Score: 3, Informative

      This may be on a smaller scale than you're imagining, but there does exist one such service today: TubeSat.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    3. 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.

  3. Good For Space Tourism by Kepesk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's great to hear that both of these companies are getting some needed funding! Armadillo has said outright that they have a goal of putting tourists into space and Masten has hinted at it. I for one look forward to lighting a rocket under my butt and launching myself out of the atmosphere.

    1. Re:Good For Space Tourism by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 2, Funny

      I for one look forward to lighting a rocket under my butt and launching myself out of the atmosphere.

      Puh-lease! It's infinitely more sophisticated than that - you cling to the side and they stick your hands on with gaffer tape.

      --
      FGD 135
  4. $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.

  5. Uh oh by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I didn't know Jeff Bezos had a spaceflight company. Can we expect a flood of new patent applications where the idea ends with "in space"?

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  6. Re:This is good. by insufflate10mg · · Score: 3, Funny

    Along with heavy government regulation. Free market restricted by sensible government regulation, thank you FMRBSG.

  7. Actually cost effective? by LaissezFaire · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hopefully this will actually be cost effective. The space shuttle was a boondoggle "reusable" space ship that had to be rebuilt nearly from scratch every launch. I care not a whit about reusable, but I do care greatly about cost.