Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Is Outsourcing Its Next Moon Lander To a Private Company (pressherald.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the there's-a-first-for-everything dept.

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine announced Thursday that nine U.S. companies will compete to deliver experiments to the lunar surface. The space agency will buy the service and let private industry work out the details on getting there, he said. The Press Herald reports: The goal is to get small science and technology experiments to the surface of the moon as soon as possible. The first flight could be next year; 2019 marks the 50th anniversary of the first manned moon landing. "We're going at high speed," said Thomas Zurbuchen, head of NASA's science mission directorate, which will lead the effort. NASA officials said the research will help get astronauts back to the moon more quickly and keep them safer once they're there. The initial deliveries likely will include radiation monitors, as well as laser reflectors for gravity and other types of measurements, Zurbuchen said. Bridenstine said it will be up to the companies to arrange their own rocket rides. NASA will be one of multiple customers using these lunar services.

40 of 83 comments (clear)

  1. Grumman isn't private? by DatbeDank · · Score: 4, Informative

    Last I checked, Grumman was a private company when the 1st lander was made.

    1. Re:Grumman isn't private? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      Last I checked, Grumman was a private company when the 1st lander was made.

      Not the same. Grumman built the lander to NASA's design spec, and then turned it over NASA, and NASA managed the landing.

      This time, NASA will just give the mission, and the private companies will figure out the best way to do it.

    2. Re:Grumman isn't private? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not the same. Grumman built the lander to NASA's design spec, and then turned it over NASA, and NASA managed the landing.

      This time, NASA will just give the mission, and the private companies will figure out the best way to do it.

      Not quite - Thomas Kelly who was a Grumman employee chiefly designed the lunar lander.

    3. Re:Grumman isn't private? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I foresee dead astronauts. Redundancies cost money, and unless it's very clearly in the specs, it won't be there.

      But hey, maybe we learn a thing or two from it...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Grumman isn't private? by rednip · · Score: 1

      The difference is that NASA isn't paying for the parts per spec, but the complete mission as a whole. Previously projects were designed down to the single integration item by a committee including congressmen and the private contractors (who are paying them). The net result is a system where the parts are broken up and scattered by congressional district. That's how the shuttle boosters (and now the solid rocket portion of the SLS, or whatever they are calling it now) are made in Utah.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    5. Re: Grumman isn't private? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      As long as you build it using Agile, I think that will work.

    6. Re:Grumman isn't private? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I foresee dead astronauts. Redundancies cost money, and unless it's very clearly in the specs, it won't be there.

      Presumably, you're talking about the redundant rocket engines in the original LM? What's that? The LM didn't have redundant rocket engines? But..but..how is this even possible, that the Government, of all people, could skip the redundancies that EVIL Private Industry would skip to save money???

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    7. Re: Grumman isn't private? by NEDHead · · Score: 4, Funny

      Using Agile you can continue to update the rocket all the way to the moon!

    8. Re:Grumman isn't private? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, Grumman was a private company when the 1st lander was made.

      I understand Ford Aerospace was building all or part of the last of them, as well.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    9. Re:Grumman isn't private? by hey! · · Score: 1

      And not just any "private companies"; usual suspect, too big to fail, politically connected defense contractors who routinely get paid "performance bonuses" for projects that are behind schedule and over budget.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    10. Re:Grumman isn't private? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You identified the probably only part on the LEM that wasn't at least once redundant. And it wasn't mostly because it was near impossible for that rocket to NOT fire. Hypergolic fuels have that property.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Grumman isn't private? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      I foresee dead astronauts.

      Then you should re-read the summary. The missions are for robots and instruments. There are no astronauts.

  2. Don't care who by TheRealQuestor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't care WHO does it as long as it gets done. Some of my earliest fond memories were sitting with my family in front of our tv and watching the landings in all their black and white detail.I was 4 and it was the coolest thing I had ever seen that it still is 50 years later. We've done some pretty remarkable things since then but nothing compares to watching a man put his feet on a world other than our own.

    1. Re:Don't care who by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      RTFS. These landings are for robots and instruments not people.

    2. Re:Don't care who by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You should.

      NASA landing a man on the moon meant that a lot of technology and progress became available to a lot of US companies. If a corporation develops and invents those things alone, you really think they would share that with anyone? They'll take taxpayer money to fund their R&D without giving any of those developments back.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Don't care who by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Germans make the best TV for the USA to enjoy.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Don't care who by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Some of my earliest fond memories were sitting with my family in front of our tv and watching the landings in all their black and white detail.

      Same here, but because we lived in Cocoa Beach, we watched the launches outside. There has yet to be anything NASA has put up that was as impressive as a Saturn V launch. Even 15 miles away, they still made the ground shake, and Apollo 17 (a nighttime launch) lit up the sky almost like daylight.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    5. Re:Don't care who by TheRealQuestor · · Score: 1

      Some of my earliest fond memories were sitting with my family in front of our tv and watching the landings in all their black and white detail.

      Same here, but because we lived in Cocoa Beach, we watched the launches outside. There has yet to be anything NASA has put up that was as impressive as a Saturn V launch. Even 15 miles away, they still made the ground shake, and Apollo 17 (a nighttime launch) lit up the sky almost like daylight.

      when I was in bootcamp I was lucky enough to see a shuttle launch and even many miles away you could hear the roar, I can only imagine the sound/feeling of seeing a Saturn 5 go up, Man that would be so awesome. Watching those 3 letters go past the camera was pretty damn cool too though. "U then S then A" Back then it was both new and a spectacle. The shuttle era became almost common place with little to no fanfare. Almost like watching a space bus go up. A really COOL space bus but still.

    6. Re:Don't care who by quanminoan · · Score: 1

      Everything is under ITAR regulations, it's not like any company can call up NASA and request a USB stick of design plans. I'm very curious how much direct tech transfer there was to SpaceX.

    7. Re:Don't care who by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      People could (and did) move freely from NASA to private companies without any gag contracts. Try to find me something like that in the private sector.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Don't care who by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      They'll take taxpayer money to fund their R&D without giving any of those developments back.

      Interesting point, it seemed like back in the days of real space technology spinoffs that also included where individuals can get real techie information to do stuff. One example is Larry Baysinger W4EJA who built a VHF receiver to eavesdrop on Apollo 11 radio transmissions, http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropp... based on available information at the time. These days almost everything on the internet is generic illustrations from PPT presentations.

      The ***good stuff*** is kept closely guarded by these private companies. i.e. nobody knows what SpaceX can do or what its plans are except what Elon says at press conferences.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
  3. SpaceX :) by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Give Elon the $, see what he can do with it.

    --
    [($)]
    1. Re:SpaceX :) by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

      His company can bid on it, too.

  4. Re:In their dreams by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    :P

    --
    [($)]
  5. 20 billion a year by melted · · Score: 2

    And we can't send people to ISS without Russian help. This is a national embarrassment. Russians spend one tenth that. That having been said, it's also like 10 days of Pentagon budget. In any case, I'm pretty sure SpaceX will make NASA obsolete within about a decade.

    1. Re:20 billion a year by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure SpaceX will make NASA obsolete within about a decade.
      It won't.
      NASA is a research facility.

      SpaceX is a commercial business.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:20 billion a year by MrLogic17 · · Score: 1

      >You Musk fanboys are nuts. SpaceX just launches satellites. It doesn't do a hundredth of what NASA does.

      SpaceX can do what NASA can't.
      SpaceX can do what NASA used to be able to do, for a tiny fraction of what it used to cost NASA.

      You're right. It's nuts to hire someone who can do something you can't do, faster and cheaper than anyone else. What madness.

    3. Re:20 billion a year by arth1 · · Score: 1

      SpaceX can do what NASA can't.
      SpaceX can do what NASA used to be able to do, for a tiny fraction of what it used to cost NASA.

      I must have missed the news, but when did SpaceX put a man on the moon, landed probes on other planets, or did any deep space exploration missions?

    4. Re:20 billion a year by arth1 · · Score: 2

      when did nasa launch a car into space just because it could?

      There are several cars on the moon, launched by NASA.

    5. Re:20 billion a year by melted · · Score: 1

      Maybe NASA needs a little more focus then.

    6. Re:20 billion a year by melted · · Score: 1

      SpaceX is also a research facility. Last I checked they're doing a lot of research on reusable rocketry, very large rockets, and other such stuff that NASA can't be bothered to pursue anymore.

    7. Re:20 billion a year by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Oh ... the nitpicking again ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re: 20 billion a year by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      In addition, SX loves working with NASA. Lots of experience, lots of good bantering of ideas. SX will not accept all, but NASA will at least point out issues on R&D that SX is working on. And then add to that, SX and NASA are developing nuke engines. Not sure how closely they are working, but both are sharing tech.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  6. WTF by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    This was already in the making. NASA said big announcement on getting to the moon/Mars, making it sound like NASA was finally working with new space to speed things up. Instead, it is a red herring.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  7. Moon landing has Elon Muskâ(TM)s name written by Invisible+Now · · Score: 1

    Space X l has reaction rocket soft landing in earth gravity coded and done in hardware. Moon gravity shoudl be do-able quickly. And who else has ready to go reliable launch capacity at any Scale as these contracts require? Look for a Space X trans lunar orbital mission soon?

    --

    "Knowing everything doesn't help..."

  8. "We're going at high speed" by NikeHerc · · Score: 1

    From the summary: ""We're going at high speed," said Thomas Zurbuchen, head of NASA's science mission directorate, which will lead the effort."

    Why are you NASA nitwits going at high speed? You've had 49 years to prepare for the celebration of the July, 1969, moon landing. I fully realize the NASA of today is more nearly the gang that couldn't shoot straight, but by going at high speed, you are guaranteed to waste my tax dollars and to jeopardize the chances of a successful mission.

    It's way past time to dump the NASA bureaucracy and to build a modern, success-oriented space agency in the same way that NASA succeeded the NACA.

    --
    Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
  9. Oxymoron by NEDHead · · Score: 1

    The first flight could be next year; 2019 marks the 50th anniversary of the first manned moon landing. "We're going at high speed," said Thomas Zurbuchen

  10. So SpaceX then? by trybywrench · · Score: 1

    They should just award it to SpaceX now, no one else is going to come close in term of value/$

    --
    I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
  11. What could possibly go wrong? by doggo · · Score: 1

    Great. Outsource more government activities to private industry. 'Cause that always works out well. I mean, look how swimmingly the prison industrial complex is working out. Or logistics for the military.

    What's next? Outsourcing the IRS? Hoo boy.

  12. Here is the list by neoRUR · · Score: 1

    The nine companies, representing seven states, are:
    Astrobiotic Technology Inc., Pittsburgh;
    Deep Space Systems, Littleton, Colorado;
    Draper, Cambridge, Massachusetts;
    Firefly Aerospace Inc.,
    Cedar Park, Texas;
    Intuitive Machines, Houston;
    Lockheed Martin, Littleton;
    Masten Space Systems Inc., Mojave, California;
    Moon Express, Cape Canaveral; and
    Orbit Beyond, Edison, New Jersey.