Slashdot Log In
NASA Outsources ISS Resupply To SpaceX, Orbital
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Dec 23, 2008 09:10 PM
from the minding-the-gap dept.
from the minding-the-gap dept.
DynaSoar writes "NASA has signed two contracts with US commercial space ventures totaling $3.5 billion for resupply of the International Space Station. SpaceX will receive $1.6 billion for 12 flights of SpaceX's planned Dragon spacecraft and their Falcon 9 boosters. $1.9 billion goes to Orbital for eight flights of its Cygnus spacecraft riding its Taurus 2 boosters. Neither of the specified craft has ever flown. However, the proposed vehicles are under construction and based on proven technology, whereas NASA has often contracted with big aerospace companies for services using vehicles not yet even designed."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Problems (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Problems (Score:5, Insightful)
The world isn't a simple as you make it out to be. Patents and copyrights lock things up, but trade secrets lock them up even more. Government intervention to make people act against their own interests is a never ending spiral. There's no way to mandate that people do good science. It's interesting that you mention national security. Current legislation basically makes good science and engineering in rocketry illegal.. cause any improvement to a rocket is an improvement to the death count of a potential weapon using that rocket. I, personally, care more about the progress of rocketry than I care about the number of potential lives lost in a potential war fought with potential rocket-based weapons in the potential future, but other people think differently.
Parent
Re:Problems (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I know this is a common US principle that is largely ignored in practice, but it's not at all common in the rest of the world. I think it's a good idea.. but, frankly, it's totally irrelevant for rocketry as the governments of the world have decided that rocketry is just too damn awesome for making weapons to be freely able to be published.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So there's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not. A friend of mine spend a few weeks, long ago, studying the characteristics of various US ICBMs to see if they were usable as orbital launch vehicles. It didn't take him long to learn that they weren't, partially because none of them had adequate delta-V. I'd be the last person to claim that we've reached a dead end in the development of guided or ballistic missiles, but I don't think tha
Science (Score:5, Interesting)
Please provide us with the most recent scientific breakthrough not carried out by a government funded lab or subsidized university.
Don't worry. We'll wait.
You see, no corporation does anything beyond what's sensible to make a profit. And often that thing is actually detrimental to society without proper regulation, dependent on your definition of progress, and no company could survive the lawsuits if they focused on pure R&D instead of R&D designed to deliver a product for sale. Imagine a company formed for fusion reactor research, promising little to no chance of return for billions of dollars of investment. It wouldn't get off the ground, and would be the laughingstock of wall street. In this case, they are refining rocket technology, not inventing it.
Good science only happens when you throw huge amounts of money into pure research. Engineering happens trying to solve problems, but not advances in science. The government doesn't force people to research anything, but it does give out wads of cash for things it wants, like the technology found in Predator drones. This is because problems are now extraordinarily complicated and require huge investments to be solved. That's not to say there aren't rare exceptions... and definitely not to say that agencies like NASA aren't in need of serious restructuring. But for the most part, it's government funded research that provides modern technology.
Also, you're totally wrong about homeland security. It's funded billions of dollars for advanced aerospace research, but to large corporations instead of backyard enthusiasts.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
We were talking about engineering, but ok.
IBM does more basic science than any other company in the world.. outside Japan. They're also better financed and have institutional knowledge that exceeds most universities by light years. As for government labs, they're good for nuclear research and that's about it.
Re:Science (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Bell Labs was an arm of a government granted monopoly that essentially taxed its users. You couldn't get phone service except through Bell at the price Bell charged. That price was regulated, and the incentive for a monopoly utility under that regime is to increase costs as far as humanly possible, because they were granted profit as a margin above its costs. Thus we have them doing justifiable but ... inefficient things like basic research.
After the monopoly was broken up, telephone calls became very,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What I don't get is how we are spending huge amounts of money to protect ourselves from ICBMs when thanks to MAD the odds of even the most crazed fundie launching one is less than winning the lotto while being struck by lightning. If some crazy jihadist wants to rack up maximum body count he would be nuts to launch a missile, which paints a giant "please kill us all" bullseye on his country when he can just sneak through our giant leaking sieve border and drive a Ryder or stolen FedEx truck right to the cen
Re: (Score:2)
And what makes you think this (releasing) isn't done? (Not to mention your comment is a complete non sequitur.)
Re:Problems (Score:5, Informative)
The Space Shuttle is almost entirely open. NASA even has many of the documents on the web. The ones that aren't can be found from the National Archives or similar repositories.
All the major systems on the rockets like the Saturn family are avaliable. (And no, they didn't lose the blueprints). If you want to know about an F-1 Engine or a JX-2 or the heat shield on an Apollo capsule or the control systems on the shuttle, it's all out there.
Most of the stuff has not actually changed that much. Yes, the avionics and communications and control systems are better, but the RCS on the shuttle is 30 years old and derived directly from Apollo
Of course, some of the components are patent protected. This is becasue they were not produced by NASA but by various companies on contract. Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrup Grumman, Rocketdyne.
of course, patents don't last forever and many of the items are past patent expiration. Also, a patent is for a given design or mechanism but does not necessarily stop you from coming out with a knockoff in the same general idea.
If you want to know why the situation with space flight is so slow and the private ventures are only now getting to the point of being able to fly on their own, the answer is simple: Space flight is really really freakin difficult.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And those questions are only very, very recently becoming valid.
If you remove Lockheed/Boeing/GD/Northrup (the commercial arm of NASA), there has not been a viable commercial launch capability until maybe 2 yrs ago. Those major players would never have done it without NASA, and NASA never had the actual factories to build it. Hence the synergistic relationship.
All the new players (Virgin, SpaceX, etc) are building off all the tech, i
Re: (Score:2)
Riiiight... because no scientist would ever take a taxi to their lab, or call out for a pizza?
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing keeping us from getting "missiled" at this point is that few countries have the ICBM technology to hit us. Which is why we're developing these "missile shields" (which sometimes work... the patriot missle defence is more or less useless at this point against modern missiles).
There are more reasons than just the lack of technology. If a country would ever attack the US in an organized strike (invasion, missiles, bombing raids, etc) we would nuke them and they know that. Also would be the lack of precession and rarity of materials needed to make ICBM, many developing countries can simply not spend that amount of money needed to make a single ICBM nor effectively deploy them. Honestly, nuclear war is, despite possible, considered to be useless by most countries as it would accom
Re:Problems (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but there is nothing stopping them from swiping the plans for the rocket boosters and developing a few payload systems that could easily hit US shores with a dirty/chemical warhead. Technically, this would not result in massive retaliation. Technically, as we weren't nuked, but I have no idea how governments would react to this kind of attack. And frankly, if it was a terrorist/extremist group it would be just as bad I guess.
Just look at Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks, minor attacks that launched major offensive strikes by the USA. And, a terrorist group with an ICBM? I doubt that would ever happen, about the closest would be North Korea but as far as we know they only have slightly long range misses, not ICBMs, and because North Korea is so poor, I doubt they would have the capability to build one especially with international pressure along with resource constraints. The main threat is a nuclear device by a terrorist/extremist group, something more akin to a "suitcase nuke" than a full ICBM.
Either way, I'd really prefer it if our rocketry sciences weren't put into public domain
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that would ever happen, about the closest would be North Korea but as far as we know they only have slightly long range misses, not ICBMs, and because North Korea is so poor, I doubt they would have the capability to build one especially with international pressure along with resource constraints.
North Korea is pretty well understood to have a good source of money [heritage.org].
Why should I have to pay in part for a billion dollar exploration mission to Pluto?
Look, not everybody has a problem with the space program. Some of us are quite fond of it, even if all we see are pictures. The hairless ape is a curious beast, forever poking his nose into things. If you don't like Nasa, that's fine, but there are better things in the budget to cut. Certainly hiring these American companies to do this is better than continuing to hire Russia. Rumor has it Russia's commitment to international coopera
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At Pearl Harbor, the Japanese damaged twenty three American ships, three of them unrepairable. Two of the ships lost were battleships. They were the only American battleships sunk during WW II. I don't call that a minor attack, I call it a major defeat!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battleships_of_the_United_States_Navy#Mid_to_late_1900s
The last ship, Wisconsin (BB-64), commissioned in 1944 (Wisconsin was approved last; however, Missouri commissioned 3 months later, due to delays from additional aircraft carrier construction)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack
2016? In Obama's Term. (Score:3, Insightful)
The article states that the contracts are valid through 2016. But, will this last when Obama comes in to office, with the expected cuts? I do realize that this is important for the future functions, but is it the biggest priority for the new president?
Re: (Score:2)
I miss sci.space.tech!
New Possibilities (Score:3, Insightful)
In theory this is not much different than contracting rocket engines to Thiokol or communication systems to Motorola. In practice however this might prove to be a boon to NASA. Not only does it allow for the centralization of specific projects under one roof, it allows commercial companies to organize entire projects instead of merely building ships - I'm of the opinion private industry can organize and meet specific goals better than the government. With that NASA can allow private competition for public funds to improve space transportation systems; and therefore serve as the arbiter of their performance. On top of that NASA can further focus on its most important job: conducting experiments in space and preparing for manned missions to the Moon and beyond (if it ever does become feasible).
Hell of a deal (Score:4, Informative)
$1.6 billion for 12 flights of SpaceX's planned Dragon spacecraft and their Falcon 9 boosters. $1.9 billion
Compared to the shuttle, it's a pretty damn good deal.
Re:Hell of a deal (Score:4, Insightful)
NASA said it was looking for each selected team to deliver a minimum of 20 metric tons to the space station over the seven-year life of the contract
At $1.6B for 20 metric tones per contract thats about $36,287 per pound. So it's actually a good deal if you take the worst cost estimate of the Shuttle running $40,000 a pound. And that the company only does the bare minimum. for the twelve launches for the Falcon 9 at $1.6B that comes out to $133M.
Parent
Re:Hell of a deal (Score:5, Informative)
Not bad considering it costs $450 million per shuttle launch.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html [nasa.gov]
Q. How much does it cost to launch a Space Shuttle?
A. The average cost to launch a Space Shuttle is about $450 million per mission.
Parent
Re:Hell of a deal (Score:4, Interesting)
Their intention is to get the Falcon9 and Dragon man-rated. The published development schedule appears to be fairly agressive. In some respects, I believe they are further along than the Ares 1 and Orion CEV programs are. Imagine a COTS program comprised of crew transport to and from the ISS or LEO.
Obama's space transition team seems to be imagining this as well:
http://www.space.com/news/081202-obama-space-spending.html [space.com]
The transition team also wants information from NASA about accelerating plans for using the agency's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program to fund demonstrations of vehicles capable of carrying crews to the international space station, a proposal Obama supported during his campaign.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Compared to the shuttle, it's a pretty damn good deal.
Just to elaborate on that... a Space Shuttle [wikipedia.org] has a payload to orbit of 24,400kg. The shuttle costs $500-$1,500 million per flight (depending on how you tabulate it). SpaceX's Falcon 9 Heavy [wikipedia.org] has a payload to orbit of 27,500kg. The commercial price per flight is $90 million; under the current contract SpaceX is charging a fixed price of $133 million per flight, which presumably is higher due to the cost of the Dragon capsule [wikipedia.org] and development fees.
That makes SpaceX's price for delivery to the space station 4x-1
Re:Hell of a deal (Score:5, Informative)
Under the current contract, SpaceX is selling about 10% of their payload for 12 flights for $133 million. Remember, they're only promising to deliver 20 tons over 12 flights, NOT the 240 tons they'll be pushing into space in those 12 flights.
Parent
The big deal here: launch costs getting cut in 1/2 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The big deal here: launch costs getting cut in (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:The big deal here: launch costs getting cut in (Score:5, Interesting)
Boeing/Lockheed/Thiokol initially only charged 1/2 the final rate too. What will the actual bill from SpaceX be, once they can suck at the govt's teat?
One big difference is that Boeing/Lockheed/Thiokol have cost-plus contracts, where if you increase the final bill you make more money. SpaceX and Orbital have fixed-price contracts, where if SpaceX or Orbital's cost estimates are too low, the companies eat the extra cost; on the other hand, if the companies figure out ways to do things more efficiently, they get more of a profit. Doing space launches under this sort of arrangement is almost unprecedented for NASA, and hopefully something we'll see much more of in the future.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They could mandate those contracts, because they could. They were already big players. SpaceX and Orbital aren't. Yet.
Their costs will go up to meet the inevitable requirement creep, and so will the final bill.
We need more players in the game. But let's not delude ourselves that the new kids will be that much better/cheaper, while retaining the same performance & safet
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Their costs will go up to meet the inevitable requirement creep, and so will the final bill.
I think you may be missing something here... as I mentioned in my comment, this is a fixed-price contract, not a cost-plus contract. The requirements (deliver a certain quantity of tonnage to orbit) are already set, and the final price is already set. SpaceX and Orbital get money as they reach contracted development milestones and make actual cargo deliveries. If their costs go up, they either eat the cost and make less of a profit, or they don't make any more money at all.
But let's not delude ourselves that the new kids will be that much better/cheaper, while retaining the same performance & safety factors.
This is an interesting belief. Do
It's only .005 TARPS (Score:4, Funny)
Why should anyone complain about this? For all of his other faults, the Bush administration has given us some great new units of federal spending that we can use the same way we measure storage capacity with "libraries of congress". Why think in terms of millions or billions or even trillions, when we can say that this new NASA contract is only .005 TARPs, 0.00583 Iraq wars, 0.014 Katrinas, 0.00875 Medicare Prescription Drugs, and 0.0175 Farm bailouts.
It's chump change!
I'm glad I'm around to see it. (Score:2)
I've always been a big Robert Heinlein fan, and the character of D.D. Harriman was particularly fun to imagine.
With this, it looks like Bob's vision of commercial space flight is finally starting to stretch to the plateau that he saw. I'm more than excited: maybe this means that that elusive space elevator is possible too? Oh, not by the same people, but hey! Maybe that's the next step.
In any case, kudos to the two companies. Thanks for seeing Mr. Heinlein's vision come true.
More details (Score:3, Informative)
For anyone looking for more info, here's some handy links:
* RLV News's link round-up on the announcement [hobbyspace.com]
* Notes from the question-and-answer teleconference after the announcement [hobbyspace.com]
Some pasted notes from the teleconference which were missing from the article linked in the summary:
Re: (Score:2)
Because using american tax dollars to pay russian salaries isn't good economic sense.
Duh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:why not contract with the russians? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Well...lets see:
Mercury-earth orbit - totally unproven, until someone did it.
Gemini-2 man, docking with another craft in orbit - totally unproven, until someone did it.
Apollo-Landing on the moon and coming back - totally unproven, until someone did it.
Do we want to stick with the old, (semi)safe stuff, or do we want to bring some new minds and technologies on board?
Re:obama is gonna be happy (Score:4, Insightful)
Most importantly, outsourcing our space program to $CHEAP_NATION [huffingtonpost.com] is even more shameful than outsourcing our other jobs!
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't we privatize our armed forces next..
Hehe, you don't read the paper much do you? There's a whole lot of contracted "security" firms in Iraq right now being paid by the US government. You might remember some of them were running a prison.. you might remember the atrocities. Ya.
Anyway, space tourism will pay for itself.. give it time.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm.. about the only people who are doing space tourism is the russians.. and they are doing it to subsidize their national space program. Maybe soon we'll see Virgin Galactic doing some suborbital space tourism.. and that's being done without a nickle of tax payer funds. So, what, exactly, are you on about?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What?!! You think building pyramids will get people to space?
When you say "no public benefit", I think you forgot to finish the sentence properly, you missed out the "that I know of" bit. It's a very narrow mind that assumes nothing exists beyond it's own knowledge. I would say that kind of mind doesn't serve the public one bit, but thinking about it, I've been to macdonalds.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It doesn't sound any different than Lockheed or NGC getting $3 billion.
As I've noted in another comment, the difference is that Lockheed/NGC have cost-plus contracts, while this is a fixed-price contract. Lockheed et al get more money if they go overbudget. SpaceX has to pay the cost if they go overbudget.
The concept drawings from any of these companies are equally far from the real thing. Maybe the CEO of SpaceX is worth a little more than the Lockheed CEO.
Concept drawings? SpaceX's Falcon 9 has already been transported to Cape Canaveral [spacex.com], and will be fully assembled and vertical within the next week.