Slashdot Mirror
Why NASA Rejected Lockheed Martin's Jupiter For Commercial Resupply Services 2 (fool.com)
MarkWhittington writes: Recently, NASA rejected Lockheed Martin's bid for a contract for the Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS-2) program as being too expensive. CRS-2 is the follow-on to the current CRS program that has SpaceX and Orbital Systems sending supplies to the International Space Station. Motley Fool explained why the aerospace giant was left behind and denied a share of what might be $14 billion between 2018 and 2024. In essence, Lockheed Martin tried to get the space agency to pay for a spacecraft that would do far more than just take cargo to and from the International Space Station.
'$10000/lb - in fact it costs a lot more'.
This is misleading - the costs quoted are for an entire developed system and sending it to ISS where it will also dock and return cargo.
This is the difference between someone delivering 10 tons of sand to a dock on the other side of the country, and bagging it nicely in their own truck, and delivering it to your desk.
... hogs get slaughtered.
In a band? Use WheresTheGig for free.
if you keep cutting nasa budgets, nasa cant buy into overpriced out-of-scope contracts proposed by your major contributors. sorry about that.
THE KING'S TOASTER
Once upon a time, in a kingdom not far from here, a king summoned two of his advisors for a test. He showed them both a shiny metal box with two slots in the top, a control knob and a lever.
"What do you think this is?"
One advisor, an engineer, answered first. "It is a toaster," he said.
The king asked, "How would you design an embedded computer for it?"
The engineer replied, "Using a four-bit microcontroller, I would write a simple program that reads the darkness knob and quantizes its position to one of 16 shades of darkness, from snow white to coal black. The program would use that darkness level as the index to a 16-element table of initial timer values. Then it would turn on the heating elements and start the timer with the initial value selected from the table. At the end of the time delay, it would turn off the heat and pop up the toast. Come back next week, and I'll show you a working prototype."
The second advisor, a computer scientist, immediately recognized the danger of such short-sighted thinking. He said, "Toasters don't just turn bread into toast, they are also used to warm frozen waffles. What you see before you is really a breakfast food cooker. As the subjects of your kingdom become more sophisticated, they will demand more capabilities. They will need a breakfast food cooker that can also cook sausage, fry bacon, and make scrambled eggs. A toaster that only makes toast will soon be obsolete. If we don't look to the future, we will have to completely redesign the toaster in just a few years.
With this in mind, we can formulate a more intelligent solution to the problem. First, create a class of breakfast foods. Specialize this class into subclasses: grains, pork and poultry. The specialization process should be repeated with grains divided into toast, muffins, pancakes and waffles; pork divided into sausage, links and bacon; and poultry divided into scrambled eggs, hard-boiled eggs, poached eggs, fried eggs, and various omelet classes.
The ham and cheese omelet class is worth special attention because it must inherit characteristics from the pork, dairy and poultry classes. Thus, we see that the problem cannot be properly solved without multiple inheritance. At run time, the program must create the proper object and send a message to the object that says, 'Cook yourself'. The semantics of this message depend, of course, on the kind of object, so they have a different meaning to a piece of toast than to scrambled eggs.
Reviewing the process so far, we see that the analysis phase has revealed that the primary requirement is to cook any kind of breakfast food. In the design phase, we have discovered some derived requirements. Specifically, we need an object-oriented language with multiple inheritance. Of course, users don't want the eggs to get cold while the bacon is frying, so concurrent processing is required, too.
We must not forget the user interface. The lever that lowers the food lacks versatility and the darkness knob is confusing. Users won't buy the product unless it has a user-friendly, graphical interface.
When the breakfast cooker is plugged in, users should see a cowboy boot on the screen. Users click on it and the message 'Booting UNIX v. 8.3' appears on the screen. (UNIX 8.3 should be out by the time the product gets to the market.) Users can pull down a menu and click on the foods they want to cook.
Having made the wise decision of specifying the software first in the design phase, all that remains is to pick an adequate hardware platform for the implementation phase. An Intel 80386 with 8MB of memory, a 30MB hard disk and a VGA monitor should be sufficient. If you select a multitasking, object oriented language that supports multiple inheritance and has a built-in GUI, writing the program will be a snap. (Imagine the difficulty we would have had if we had foolishly allowed a hardware-first design strategy to lock us into a four-bit microcontroller!)."
The king had the computer scientist thrown in the moat, and they all lived happily ever after.
So half of it sounds like Lockheed Martin whining that they lost the contract, even though as the biggest aerospace company they should have won. The writer either changed his mind halfway through and decided they deserved the loss, or just copied the first half verbatim from Lockheed Martin's press release.
The other half is based on ignoring the word "development". Sure, the marginal cost to send a pound of stuff to space is about $10K. The cost to design a system to do so is considerably greater, particularly when you're developing not one, but three systems, for redundancy.
And then he caps it off with "maybe we should just build a space elevator?", like the only reason we haven't done so is because it would cost too much, and certainly not because of the immense engineering challenges.
I'm a lesbian albino midget, you insensitive clod.
It's a crappy article. It says that Lockheed Martin should have "by all rights" won the contract, even though it then admits that their bid was the highest and was just a way to get NASA to fund their own private goal to build a space tug, which NASA doesn't want and can't afford. And then to bring up a space elevator as though it's a reasonable, inexpensive alternative? What in the hell?
Of course, it caps off with this, and it's then obvious that they just spent a couple minutes summarizing articles from other sites so they could add in their own advertising to it:
Wow, it's just like a good 30% of the spam I regularly get.
I like the idea of a space tug that can refuel and move satellites in orbit, but this role seems to be at odds with bringing cargo to the ISS which is the goal of the CRS(2) contracts.
From what I understand the plan goes like this: On the first flight Jupiter (the tug) and Exoliner (the cargo vessel) go up together, once they are in orbit Jupiter adjusts the orbit to reach the ISS, after the cargo is offloaded and garbage is loaded Jupiter puts Exoliner on a path to burn up in the atmosphere while it itself stays in orbit to pick up the next Exoliner that's launched alone, as well as other tug duties.
So the problem as I see it is this:
For a tug you'd probably want a much more efficient ion drive to avoid refueling often, fuel boiling off and the like, you probably want the robotic arm that grabs on to wayward satellites.
For supply deliveries you probably want liquid engines because some of the supplies and experiments are perishable and can't afford to wait the weeks or months it would take an ion engine to boost them to ISS orbit.
And the grabby arm is redundant mass because the ISS has its own arm that's quite proficient at berthing other vehicles like the Dragon or Cygnus.
So it looks like a compromise of design that's intended to get NASA to pay with the cargo delivery contract for unrelated functionality.
Given how Lockheed Martin seems completely incapable of bringing in ANY project on time or budget it is fitting that they not be awarded any new contracts -yes I can dream anyway, especially with NASA where they simply don't have the option of asking for billions of extra dollars to cover bullshit overruns like the F-35 has seen.
Nor can NASA afford to overspend on a project like the F-35 that cannot actually DO what it was designed to do.
This company would be a criminal enterprise under normal circumstances in any other industry. But they get a pass for being so vital. And well connected.
Sig for hire.
quick poll: bang or not?
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
It used to be interesting counter-wall street advice way, way back. Now it's just click bait ads for pump and dump schemes to make them rich.
Not that the ad and click-bait has anything to do with the article, but knowing who "wrote" meant that it was clear nothing of value or insight would be written on those pages.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Space tug sounds good even in today space, in the future their uses will only expand.
However if it is super expensive (like NASA says it is) then it uses become very limited to the most critical situations (which ISS resupply is not).
Basically good tech, but probably will become really useful only after 2nd or 3rd iteration when they take costs under control.