Slashdot Mirror
Study Finds SpaceX Investment Saved NASA Hundreds of Millions (popularmechanics.com)
schwit1 shares a report from Popular Mechanics: When a SpaceX Dragon spacecraft connected with the International Space Station on May 25, 2012, it made history as the first privately-built spacecraft to reach the ISS. The Dragon was the result of a decision 6 years prior -- in 2006, NASA made an "unprecedented" investment in SpaceX technology. A new financial analysis shows that the investment has paid off, and the government found one of the true bargains of the 21st century when it invested in SpaceX. A new research paper by Edgar Zapata, who works at Kennedy Space Center, looks closely at the finances of SpaceX and NASA. "There were indications that commercial space transportation would be a viable option from as far back as the 1980s," Zapata writes. "When the first components of the ISS were sent into orbit 1998, NASA was focused on "ambitious, large single stage-to-orbit launchers with large price tags to match." For future commercial crew missions sending astronauts into space, Zapata estimates that it will cost $405 million for a SpaceX Dragon crew deployment of 4 and $654 million for a Boeing Starliner, which is scheduled for its first flight in 2019. That sounds like a lot, and it is, but Zapata estimates that its only 37 to 39 percent of what it would have cost the government.
Seriously, when you're being compared to notoriously expensive "cost-plus" contracts with (largely) military contractors, it's not hard to emerge as the cheaper option.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
I was literally touring kennedy space center yesterday, the theme of the guided tour was commercial contractors are going to take over LEO and NASA will focus on deep space with SLS/Orion
Of course ULA got nothing from NASA either. Nope, not a single dime from absurd cost-plus contracts.
Yet they never did. Could of, would of, should of. Too busy lining the pockets of ULA executives.
Of course, we know they're not going to be doing that either. Even ignoring the continual delays, SLS is simply an impractical launch vehicle. Way too expensive per launch, and they'll never have enough launches to refine it.
NASA needs to accept that it's not going to be a launch supplier, and switch to what it does best: R&D and exploration missions. And the new launch environment should be embraced. Think of what can be done when launch costs are much less than spacecraft development costs: suddenly you have a much stronger incentive to mass-produce spacecraft designs, since the incremental cost becomes so much less than the single-unit cost. Picture the era where we don't launch, say, 1 Dawn spacecraft, we launch a hundred of them, each to different bodies. We don't launch 1 Mars rover, we launch a couple dozen, each to different parts of Mars. Etc.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not âEureka!â(TM), but
As for your obvious feelings about fiat currency, the one thing people never seem to recognize is that there is no such thing as intrinsic value. Value is an entirely human, thus subjective, concept. Every form of currency is fiat because it is based on a common agreement that something represents value - be it gold or paper. The gold standard just puts an intermediate step between the currency itself and its imagined value.
I'm waiting to hear that the study of the costs was so expensive, all of the savings have been lost...
This is why there is incentive to increase costs. More cost = more profit.
The government often asks for scads of reports and documentation to show that you are following their accounting, engineering, quality, ... guidelines and rules. This needs to be delivered in their format, that they then give to auditors to pore over for years. Then there are "compliance" folks at the contractors whose job is to ensure that all reports are being done according to the contractual requirements. These contracts will often reference multiple contradictory government and industry standards, setting the stage for a number of people to research and resolve these conflicts. All of this extra work is "allowable" (since the government cannot ask you to perform work without compensation) and simply gets worked into the contract, inflating the cost (and improving the profit). If you have a high tolerance for bureaucratic quagmires, then government contracting can be very lucrative.
On the other hand, a commercial entity simply says "rocket costs 65 million dollars". The contract is a standard purchase order. Nothing more.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
Really? What I took away was, "Look how much more efficient and effective private enterprise is!"
Private enterprise is NOT always more efficient or cheaper. Private enterprise generally does a terrible job on anything that is a public good. Roads, policing, primary education, basic research, and many other necessary things that do not have a direct and relatively short term profit motive are difficult for private enterprise to do effectively or efficiently. The notion that private enterprise is always better is idiotic, false and counterproductive. Use private enterprise for what it is good at and government for what it is good at and have them work together when appropriate.
There is absolutely no way the Apollo program could have happened with private enterprise footing the bill. Private enterprise was useful to contract for specific tasks but it never would have happened if we'd let the Invisible Hand of the market do its thing. The Hubble Telescope would never have happened as a privately owned and operated device.
Zapata estimates that [ the cost of a SpaceX crew deployment ] its only 37 to 39 percent of what it would have cost the government.
Sounds like it's time to sell-off NASA's space operations (or maybe just the non-exploration parts) to SpaceX.
They seem to be doing a much better job of it. More innovative, cheaper, faster turnarounds. Is there really any reason for NASA to do anything in LEO any more?
Hey I have an idea. Spacex is so good, we need to Eliminate NASA, destroy the launch facilities, and restore Cape Canaveral to the wildlife only refuge is is, and Spacex will take over and we'll save so much money we'll finally be winning.
Only makes sense, Spacex will start making engines on production lines that will dwarf anything NASA ever made, I'm expecting with their expertise that 10 million pounds of thrust should be just a CAD design away.
Sorry to ridicule you, but it's a partnership. Spacex is doing the work that can be profitable.
More's the pity that people are seeing the system working like it should, and decide that the outfit that makes all this stuff possible through development of the technology then transferring it to private enterprise is somehow the bad guy.
IOW, Spacex is getting the stuff that is reduced to practice, and tweaking the hell out of it to improve it, and now NASA still provides the facilities, and doesn't have to do the mundane work, and can continue to work on the balls to the wall stuff that sure as hell isn't ready to transfer yet. You need to research the F1 engines used on the Saturn, and now the F1-b's. Many superlatives like the loudest non- nuclear detonation noise made by humans, the emplacement of Mission control based on a minimum survivable distance from the launchpad to realize that private industry isn't going to develop much less take on that responsibility.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.