NASA Signals Interest In Extending Commercial Spaceflight To the Moon (arstechnica.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Signals Interest In Extending Commercial Spaceflight To the Moon (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Tuesday November 1, 2016 @07:00PM from the moon-base dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: NASA on Tuesday took a tentative step toward contracting with private companies to send scientific payloads to the surface of the Moon, beginning as early as next year. The space agency hasn't committed to funding these projects yet, but this may be a signal the agency is interested in a wider program to explore the Moon. The agency released a request for information (RFI) for a "Small Lunar Surface Payload" program that recognizes the ability of several US companies to develop robots to land on the Moon. The timing coincides with the Google Lunar XPRIZE, which requires entrants to land a small spacecraft on the surface of the Moon by the end of 2017. "NASA is asking for information about small instruments that could be placed on small lunar landers, and our interest is that we want to address our strategic knowledge gaps," said John Guidi, deputy director of the advanced exploration systems division within NASA's human spaceflight division. Those knowledge gaps -- which NASA is studying to increase the effectiveness and improve the design of robotic and human space exploration missions to the Moon -- include understanding the availability of resources, such as water ice, as well as better understanding how the lunar environment will affect human life and the ability to work and live on the lunar surface for long periods of time. By using low-cost private launchers and small, privately developed payloads, the space agency hopes to find answers to some of these research questions within its limited exploration budget. One of the private companies interested in providing delivery services, Moon Express, responded to the government's proposal with one of its own on Tuesday. The US company announced a program to provide $1.5 million in cash and services to support private payloads that NASA selects to fly to the Moon. Effectively, the company will be offering its services at a discount, providing up to $500,000 in funding for each instrument NASA chooses to fly on Moon Express' first three spacecraft.

24 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Might be useless.... by beheaderaswp · 2016-11-01 19:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

I hardly think that any of this will happen after the election this year. The country is going to have big problems internally and externally no matter who wins.
As much as I think the space program is a "must have". There's no way it survives for very long after this election.
It will be left to SpaceX and other commercial space companies to work it out. Or China. But the NASA is probably done.

--
Another consultant who stuck it out.

"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
1. Re:Might be useless.... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-01 20:31 · Score: 0
  
  You might be full of nihilistic sky-is-falling-type bullshit, just saying. Whether or not NASA is able to viably put tourists on the moon, it's not going anywhere.
2. Re:Might be useless.... by michelcolman · 2016-11-01 22:31 · Score: 1
  
  It would be kind of fun if SpaceX could send some people to the moon as a kind of test flight before going to Mars, to make sure everything is working. If they can take enough fuel to get to Mars, they should be able to pop over to the moon and have enough left over to come back.
3. Re:Might be useless.... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-01 23:10 · Score: 0
  
  "As much as I think the space program is a "must have". "
  Why? More than, say, highways? Or municipal drinking water and sewage treatment?
4. Re:Might be useless.... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-11-01 23:51 · Score: 2
  
  NASA's job description preferably shouldn't include "running a space program" any more than NACA's description included "running an airline and cargo service".
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
5. Re:Might be useless.... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-11-01 23:56 · Score: 2
  
  Not necessarily. Admittedly, you should only need ~2,5 km/v of residual delta V once you land on the Moon, but that's 2,5 km/s more than what's require on Mars. The LEO-lunar surface leg isn't shorter either, energy-wise. Well, maybe if you sent it sufficiently empty, it could work. It would probably still land with more useful payload than was the whole descent mass of the LM.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
6. Re:Might be useless.... by JaredOfEuropa · 2016-11-02 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  When you send people to Mars, you need a whole lot of extra mass compared to a lunar trip. This is all "useless" mass necessary to keep a couple of meatbags alive during the much longer journey: food, water, extra shielding, workout equipment, a larger habitat. That translates to extra fuel.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
7. Re:Might be useless.... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-11-02 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  True, that's a part of what I meant by "sufficiently empty".
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
8. Re:Might be useless.... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-02 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  I knew an old guy at NASA from the Apollo days. He was high up in the organization and this was his #1 criticism, that it tried to be both a research and operational organization. He said they were very good in the r&d department, but flailed operationally and thought that they should get out of that business. He was a mentor and used to tell me many stories about the early days there. This was ten years before spacex existed.
9. Re:Might be useless.... by k6mfw · 2016-11-02 03:46 · Score: 0
  
  It will be left to SpaceX ...
  I was wondering what would happen to SpaceX if Trump is elected. I read someplace that Pad 39A was allocated to SpaceX for their big rocket in return for Elon Musk donated to Obama's re-election campaign. It is obvious a Trump administration will undo many Obama programs, and SpaceX lose Pad 39A? That sure would disrupt plans for Falcon Heavy.
  
  --
  mfwright@batnet.com
10. Re:Might be useless.... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-02 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  We have plenty of highways, we don't really need any more.
  Municipal drinking water and sewage treatment should be, duh, a municipal matter.
11. Re:Might be useless.... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-02 07:00 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, fine, "duh." I didn't realize municipal was excluded from the "must have" criteria. Thanks for making it clear that Space Nutters are insane.
  I also didn't realize highways are eternal. Thanks for the information.
Chicken little? by sjbe · 2016-11-01 23:56 · Score: 2

I hardly think that any of this will happen after the election this year. The country is going to have big problems internally and externally no matter who wins.
Every country has big problems all the time. That's always been true and always will be true. The difficulty of the problems is merely a matter of degree. Our current problems are no where near the worst our country has faced and certainly aren't anything close to an existential crisis like the Civil War or WWII or the Great Depression.

As much as I think the space program is a "must have". There's no way it survives for very long after this election.
Why? Because you don't like the candidates? NASA and our space program aren't going anywhere. They might not grow very fast but it isn't in any danger of going away either. There is WAY too much economic utility for that to happen.
Not your father's NASA anymore by bignetbuy · 2016-11-02 00:59 · Score: 2

What a crying shame. This agency is rapidly working its way towards extinction. Or at best, will become some Washington DC "space committee" that rubber-stamps private ventures into space. They might as well start selling off or spinning off their successful ventures now. Maybe they can sell naming rights to the KSC or MSFC too.
So damn sad.
1. Re:Not your father's NASA anymore by rijrunner · 2016-11-02 05:24 · Score: 2
  
  The point of NASA is to not become essentially a merchant marine for space. It put all of its budget into operations of space craft for decades and that has taken a toll on its science and research portions. There is nothing particularly noteworthy about it having a monopoly on space operations and that negatively impacts other options. NASA is a great R&D operation and does wonderful science. Why would it also be tasked with running operations when that is a function that has moved well into industry at this point?
  There is nothing to indicate that it functions as a rubberstamp for private space operations. Actually, the only government agency that has any stamp functions is the FAA. NASA is *not* a regulatory agency, it is an R&D agency for the purpose of science and research and that function looks to be both necessary and germane to the long term space strategy of the US.
2. Re:Not your father's NASA anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-02 06:36 · Score: 0
  
  "They might as well start selling off or spinning off their successful ventures now"
  They've already been doing that for years, for example they gave Bigelow a cushy exclusive licensing agreement for their TransHab patents after pouring millions into it. And perhaps its not such a bad thing for them to be scaled back, they've become a pork project haven/political battle ground over the years. Most of their launch system attempts over the past few decades (National Aerospace Plane, Advanced Solid Rocket Motor, National Launch System, Venture Star, DC-X, etc) have been abysmal failures. Not all of this has been their fault mind you, Congress shares a hefty portion of it for attaching a web of red tape with the (often insufficient) funding they tend to send NASAs way. But NASA also has their own management/contract enforcement issues, virtually every project ends up over budget and some programs that were on budget & meeting their goals (the mentioned DC-X) tanked the second they fell under NASAs management. Unless they (and Congress) can get their act together they should be relegated to an agency that contracts out their missions to private companies.
Nothing worthwhile on the moon by Oswald+McWeany · 2016-11-02 01:21 · Score: 1

There's nothing worthwhile on the moon. It's just regolith (and space Nazi's living on the dark side). Why waste time on the moon? To Mars please..

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
1. Re:Nothing worthwhile on the moon by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-02 03:59 · Score: 0
  
  Oh yes, all those valuable rusty deadly rocks in a radioactive dark vacuum on Mars. So valuable.
Re:Barak Obama by stealth_finger · 2016-11-02 03:29 · Score: 1

And Clinton is a reptilian and Trump is just a massive idiot. What's your point?

--
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Meet the Kramdens! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-11-02 05:36 · Score: 0

NASA is going to the Moon to meet Alice and Ralph Kramden.