Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
NASA Space

NASA Does a U-Turn, Opens To Private Industry 81

mattnyc99 writes "Popular Mechanics is reporting that NASA — faced with the looming retirement of the space shuttle, and planning for longer missions like the one to Mars we've been discussing — is looking to free up its budget and depend a lot more on private space startups to carry key payloads into orbit in the next few years. For an agency so steeped in bureaucracy, it seems like everyone from NASA chief Mike Griffin to contracted officials to the key players in this in-depth podcast roundtable is finally acknowledging that commercial rocketeering (space tourists aside) is a more efficient means of getting back into space for NASA. Quoting: 'Because of a new focus for NASA's strategic investments — not to mention incentives like the Ansari X Prize, which spurred the space-tourism business, and the Google Lunar X Prize, which could do the same for payloads — private-sector spaceships could be ready for government service soon, says Sam Scimemi, who heads NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program. "The industry has grown up," he tells PM. "It used to be that only NASA or the Air Force could do such things."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Does a U-Turn, Opens To Private Industry

Comments Filter:
  • by pavon ( 30274 ) on Monday May 12, 2008 @07:38PM (#23385684)
    This isn't an about-face. The fact of the matter is that NASA has been required by law to contract out nearly all of its launch production, facilities and maintenance for a long time now. All of its probe launches are done with Boeing and Lockheed rockets. NASA has also gone out of its way to offer contracts to the smaller private companies from the vary beginning of the new launcher plans. If you look at the contracts they almost appear to be intentionally catered to the strengths of these specific start-ups.

    This isn't about public vs private - it is about NASA's desire to stop being dependant on a small number of large aerospace corporations. It is about their desire for space exploration grow in anyway possible. Everybody who works there wants to see SpaceX, t-Space, and the others succeed, as much as the folks here do.
  • by Baldrson ( 78598 ) * on Monday May 12, 2008 @08:54PM (#23386346) Homepage Journal
    PL 101-611, the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990, has required NASA to do this for the last 18 years.

    Tragically there was an obvious direction in place subsequent to the space race (remember the Apollo program?) that would have been followed through to space industrialization had the launch service industry enjoyed the same protection from government competition that the satellite industry enjoyed [presageinc.com]:

    * (c) Private enterprise; access; competition

    In order to facilitate this development and to provide for the widest possible participation by private enterprise, United States participation in the global system shall be in the form of a private corporation, subject to appropriate governmental regulation. It is the intent of Congress that all authorized users shall have nondiscriminatory access to the system; that maximum competition be maintained in the provision of equipment and services utilized by the system; that the corporation created under this chapter be so organized and operated as to maintain and strengthen competition in the provision of communications services to the public; and that the activities of the corporation created under this chapter and of the persons or companies participating in the ownership of the corporation shall be consistent with the Federal antitrust laws.

    It wasn't until 1990, when a coalition of grassroots groups across the country [geocities.com] lobbied hard for 3 years, that similar legislation got passed for launch services.

    The fact that the global economic paradigm didn't follow the Club of Rome model exactly doesn't change the reality of the Malthusian paradigm given a fundamentally limited biosphere undergoing its largest extinction event in 60 million years. The Club of Rome merely added academic fashion to the very real urgency of the Malthusian situation still facing the biosphere. The 1970s was the right time to start the drive for space industrialization based on a private launch service industry. It didn't happen, the pioneering culture that founded the US is being replaced by government policy with less pioneering cultures and now we're all facing some increasingly obvious difficulties -- not just pioneer American stock -- and not just humans.

  • by ZonkerWilliam ( 953437 ) * on Monday May 12, 2008 @08:57PM (#23386372) Journal
    One big reason private companies are better than government is budgets. A government agency runs on budgets, they aren't motivated to save money if they don't spend all of it they don't get it back the next year, use it or loose it. Simple as that.
  • by susano_otter ( 123650 ) on Monday May 12, 2008 @10:48PM (#23387142) Homepage
    Actually, "reveal everything to NASA" is a condition of the funding. Nobody delivers a black box system to NASA.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 12, 2008 @11:29PM (#23387406)
    I worked for a company of a few hundred employees, who contracted directly and indirectly with NASA providing technical and engineering support for Ares I. Not a usual suspect. And there are a lot of us around. Lots of little companies you've never heard of, designing and engineering Ares. Sure, Boeing and LockMart have the big contracts to fabricate (honestly, there aren't many who could compete who have the capabilities, care to name a few who could outside the "usual suspects"?), but the engineering work is being done by a host of contractors you've never heard of.
  • by Teancum ( 67324 ) <robert_horning AT netzero DOT net> on Tuesday May 13, 2008 @02:09PM (#23393478) Homepage Journal
    You tend to get better services from civilian contractors that are performing tasks that are admittedly something more of a civilian task anyway.

    Do you think that some private soldier or ordinary seaman is going to have their heart into flipping burgers at the Burger King in the PX? What kind of accounting job do you think some 2nd Lieutenant fresh out of college is going to perform as opposed to a professional CPA with 30 years of experience that doesn't want to deal with the ordeals of a military officer? Neither of these jobs require somebody train in weaponry and combat tactics, yet these are examples of civilian contractors who do indeed work for the Department of Defense... sometimes on DoD payrolls even instead of contract situation.

    During World War II, these would have been military jobs and indeed were given military ranks. Just like Ronald Reagan and his military commission in the Army doing what is admittedly a civilian job (he only made training films and was never considered for front-line service).

1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.

Working...