Slashdot Mirror
NASA Funded Commercial Space Projects Heating Up
coondoggie writes "NASA's role as commercial space entrepreneur is going well and the four companies it is funding to build future spacecraft that could take astronauts to and from the International Space Station and other destinations are moving forward. That was the chief observation in a status report the space agency issued this week entitled 'NASA's return on investment report.' You may recall that in April NASA split $270 million between Boeing ($92 million), Space Exploration Technologies (Space X--$75 million), Sierra Nevada ($80 million) and Blue Origin ($22 million) to continue development of commercial rockets and spacecraft capable of safely flying astronauts into orbit and to the International Space Station." Gubers33 pointed out another article about NASA's upcoming plans for Jupiter, Mars, and the Moon.
Boeing got the biggest slice of the pie, what a fucking surprise. So when are they going to show off their launcher that has costs below that of Space-X?
projects underway. For a while there it seemed like everything under NASA was getting shut down while still in the design stage. I understand there's still a long way to go before we can start visiting space again, but hopefully we'll get there sooner than later and with a cheaper vehicle.
A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
Orbital beer runs? Awesome!
We're spending at least two orders more per year just on air conditioning in Afghanistan.
Only a complete pussy would post as an Anonymous Coward when they have something meaningful to say.
im pretty sure pretty much all rockets have failures early in their development careers. spacex mitigated that somewhat with having its failures on its smaller falcon 1 rocket, and once they ironed out the issues, built its larger more expensive falcon 9, which is 2 for 2 successes so far. so quit your anonymous coward bitching. spacex are putting more shit in space for less cost than the fucking chinese for fucks sake.
NASA has reneged on its deal with the ESA in a move that cripples international space ventures, damages Mars exploration and inflicts severe damage on non-American engineering companies. This is blatant nationalism over and above science OR industry. This is NOT acceptable and given that this isn't the least bit unusual (NASA's failure to have a shuttle replacement reneges on ISS contractual obligations, for example), it would not surprise me if other nations stop cooperating with NASA at all. Why bother, if NASA is never going to come through on the deal?
Yes, this would be somewhat cynical - all national organizations are going to put those they call "their own" first, above any actual merit or any legal obligation to which they are tied. It's cronyism on a national scale rather than a familial one. Nonetheless, incidence by other nations have tended to not be as... ...expensive as NASA's.
It's also a bit unreasonable, given that NASA is pwned by corrupt politicians buying voters rather than being devolved and semi-autonomous, to actually give more of a damn about the science than it is about the views of those politicians who can kill NASA utterly any year they like by simply eliminating it as a budget item and transferring all GFE to the military. As I've said before, a BBC-like charter system (guaranteed income for X years no matter what in exchange for providing Y services with zero government interference on how those services are provided, with all ownership being by the organization and not the government and all profit thus derived being independent of the charter's fixed income) would be the superior system for NASA. It HAS to eliminate politics, not just in part but in whole, if it is to survive, let alone have even an iota of respect from anyone.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
This update points out that dark forces within NASA are urging the return of cost-plus contracting for crew transport (scroll down to "Commercial Crew" section therein). This will get us straight back into the traditional world of missed schedules and massive overruns, if it's allowed to happen. USAan readers please hold yourselves in readiness to contact your elected lords and, um, representatives.
The original Atlas rockets had repeated failures, including one that blew up live on national network television. The Mercury astronauts were invited to attend that one live and in person, in hopes they would continue to support the rocket for when they would take a trip on it into space.... that was to happen just a couple of months later.
Don't go into how rocket manufacturing technology has improved so much since then, since it is still a crap shoot to see if the rocket actually works in the first place. There is some improvement in terms of new metallurgy and other stuff, but why is SpaceX singled out here from anybody else? Why does Boeing or ATK have a monopoly on the knowledge for how to get into space? (which they don't)
Building rockets is a tough business, and any new rocket is going to have problems. I sure don't know why the SLS is any better than the Falcon 9, other than the fact that it hasn't actually flown at all nor is the design even stable for that matter.
The amount being spent here seems to be a whole lot, until you consider how much is going to be poured down the "back-up insurance plan" with the SLS program just in case the commercial spaceflight approach doesn't work. I've heard estimates of about $3-4 billion being spent just on that one program, something that still has yet to even be figured out in terms of who is even going to build it in the first place.
Since when do you pay 5x to 10x the cost for an insurance policy to cover the value of what you want to protect against failure? I guess that is government spending logic for you. I'd rather have another dozen companies be trying to build something using the CCDev funding model than a monolithic cost-plus uber project that will never fly anyway. Even the Blue Origin spacecraft has a higher likelihood chance of getting to space than anything being done by the NASA directorates... and they seem to be the furthest behind.
NASA just released the status update for the CCDEV program. Stuff is actually happening there, and there may even be flights by the end of this year, next year at the latest.
It may be a good idea. Don't worry though, Congress will kill it.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Which of these funded corps will first launch and retrieve satellites while in orbit? Or can the latest one still keep closest to USA orbital continuity, but better than the first? The latter would be better.
--
make install -not war
Portable air conditioning packs, I presume
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
This is not a subject I've tried to look at with any depth. But I have this nagging question: how is any of this materially different than NASA's soliciting contracts from the major aerospace industry? Ostensibly, this just appears to be about bringing smaller, untried companies into the same general stable as the larger 'usual suspects'. I did see a note about procurement differences (i.e not cost plus contracting), but if that all it is this 'commercial space flight' stuff seems more to be branding by the powers that be rather than anything genuinely unique.
I think a lot of people are thinking of this more along the lines of business entrepreneurs like Virgin & Scaled that are investing a product and service that they hope will be self-sustaining based on market demand as opposed to merely a different take on government contracting arcana . Again, I could be completely wrong, but every time I hear about NASA's commercial space initiatives, and its process, it sounds much more like the latter.
Good points... last I heard, rocket science was still, er... rocket science.
(Sorry someone had to say it)
Cheat the moderation system - here's how they downmod others, and this is where countertrolling explains what he's doing while he trolls others (to his fellow trolltalk.com friends):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2245866&cid=36491652
And, here's where countertrolling's "troll mechanics" for downmodding others is explained in detail by someone that got sick of it happening:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2271908&cid=36579618
As far as bogus up moderations, the trolltalk.com bunch (tomhudson, countertrolling, & others) collectively "team up" to upmod one another, in teams, as favors to one another.
(Talk about low, and bogus!)
"emuserp I ,skcap gninoitidnoc ria elbatroP - by - another done nothing with his life "ne'er-do-well" troll
"???"
* Uhm, lol... Could we get a translation of that "troll-speak" of yours, please?
(LOL!)
APK
P.S.=> Truce time yet, countertrolling?
The above was courtesy of this sourcecode (takes only seconds to apply):
---
#TrollTalkComReversePsychologyKiller.py (Ver #2 by APK)
def reverse(s):
try:
trollstring = ""
for apksays in s:
trollstring = apksays + trollstring
except:
print("error/abend in reverse function")
return trollstring
s = "String to reverse."
print reverse(s)
try:
s = "Portable air conditioning packs, I presume"
s = reverse(s)
print(s)
except Exception as e:
print(e)
---
... apk
Space is REALLY REALLY big. Space also requires multinational efforts to reach and operate in. There is no way we are going to fight wars in Space. Any country that has the resources to get into space is not going to risk having them destroyed. Indeed, with Space becoming privatized, there will be even less incentive for war to happen. Corporations can make magnitudes more profit from peaceful operations rather than supporting WAR.
It's all well and fine to talk about "NASA's role as commercial space entrepreneur" ...
Except that it isn't one.
Can you buy stock?
Is NASA seeking a profit?
If NASA fails, does it declare bankruptcy?
Is NASA part of the government and tax-funded?
I am not a big fan of NASA, though I am awed by some of the things that the very smart people of NASA have over the years accomplished. You may like NASA, your dad or mom or best friend (or you!) may work there, and you may unconscionable any suggestion that NASA is not a good use of tax dollars.
But NASA is not an entrepreneur.
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5