NASA May Have to Buy Trips to Space

MattSparkes writes "Budget cuts could leave NASA without a Space Shuttle replacement, and leave it reliant on private firms to get payloads into space. A similar scenario happened between 1975 and 1981 when NASA made the transition from Apollo to the Space Shuttle. It seems like a strange state of affairs when a magazine can take people to space, but the USA can't."

Not the same thing

[Anonymous Coward]

A sub-orbital 90 second flight is not the same thing as what NASA usually does. These comparisons where NASA is ridiculed do not make sense.

Re:This isn't so strange

[b0s0z0ku]

The US government doesn't design and build trucks.

They sort of do - a lot of military trucks are built specifically to government contract and only sold to civilians later or as surplus. Look at the Humvees, the M-151 MUTTs, and the Gama Goats as examples of this.

-b.

Re:This isn't so strange

[twostar]

Exactly, and this isn't something new. NASA's robotic missions have been launched via rockets from Boeing and Lockheed for years. So they're finally moving the manned missions over, it's about time.

Now they can focus on what they're good at, exploring and innovating, not running a hauling service.

Re:Sorry, but I had to

[Rob the Bold]

I do not, however, believe space exploration is within the constitutionally defined limits of what the federal government should be doing.

NASA is a huge, wasteful organization that should be dismantled. If there is value in space exploration, let that be done by the private sector, who has a fiduciary incentive to not waste money.

NASA should not be eliminated.

The federal government is charged with the responsibility to "Promote the General Welfare". If, therefore, there is value in space exploration, then one could argue that this promotes the general welfare.

Launching commercial satelites is something that could be done by the private sector. There is money in it. Purer research is not as appealing to the private sector. This research is what NASA should be focused on.

Some folks might say that research is only worth doing if it leads directly to a profitable discoverty, and that therefore private research is all that we need. I do not agree with this point of view. Scientific research for its own sake is a worthwhile endeavor and is in the long term interest of the public.

SpaceX, Rocketplane, and COTS Option

[Doug Dante]

NASA can fulfill its mission by expanding its existing COTS contract [spacex.com] with SpaceX [spacex.com] and expanding it to include manned launches using the dragon crew [spacex.com] module.

The American people will still have a vibrant space agency, that can focus on exploration, rather than on space launch, which is rapidly becoming a normal, commercial business.

NASA's COTS contract [nasa.gov] also includes Rocketplane [rocketplane.com], which also includes demonstrations for ISS support.

The COTS contract was a polite way for Congress to buy some insurance in case Lockheed's Space Shuttle Replacement [popularmechanics.com] spins out of cost control in terms of either dollars or time.

Which I think is a great move as a taxpayer, having watched ISS cost much more than planned and delivering much less than expected.

We just need the safest, soonest, and cheapest way to get people and stuff into space. I don't care who does it, so Lockheed and those people at NASA in bed with Lockheed, watch out, you've got competition.

Misinformation

[Edward Ka-Spel]

There sure is a lot of misinformation in this thread. Here are some ideas I noticed that seem blatantly wrong.

1) There are private companies out there who can do what NASA is doing: If you RTFA, you'll notice that currently only the Shuttle and the Russian Progress and Soyuz ships can make it to the ISS. There may be a possibility of a JAXA craft or an ESA craft in the future. Both government built craft.

2) NASA is afraid/against private industry building space craft: Actually, NASA is highly in favor of a private company building a space ship to go to the ISS. They are actively funding two companies to help them build such a craft. In their current architecture, the CEV/CLV is not really going to be used for ISS. They would rather use a COTS solution for that.

3) We should leave all of space exploration up to private industry: Private industry will only do something if they know they can get money for it. Can you show me the business plan to make money off of trips to the moon? Trips to the ISS? Remember, you have to have a net profit on these endeavors. Until the cost and risk are reduced to manageable levels, the private industry will not do this on their own. The Russians did not get a net profit from their space tourists. They got a little extra money from a mission that had to happen anyway. Virgin Galactic may actually be able to make money by sending people into space, but that is sub-orbital. A huge difference between that and going to the ISS. The reason for government funding into areas like this is to promote activity in areas that are too costly or too risky for a company to do.

4) A magazine can take people to space: No, a Russian Soyuz capsule can take people to space.

That will do for now.