NASA Outsources ISS Resupply To SpaceX, Orbital 151
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."
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: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.
Re:Problems (Score:1, Insightful)
What really needs to happen is that taxpayers fund government research which releases *all* findings/blueprints/formulas/source/etc to the public (minus *real* national security issues, such nuclear weapons).
You are completely and utterly out of your mind if you think we should be letting out all of our rocket technology to the public.
Absolutely insane.
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).
Giving other countries access to our space shuttle tech (aside from the iron state memory and whatever else is inside the shuttle is pretty much useless), I'm sure they could use at least the engine to design a better missile.
Some of this stuff needs to be kept safeish right now.
On a side note, lots of companies make a lot of money and jobs by being given these contracts and they usually do it more efficiently than the government can so I'm all in favor of it (I'm not saying they're perfect, I've heard enough stories of the government contract jobs that it really pisses me off when I pay taxes...)
Re:why not contract with the russians? (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
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
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!
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.
Re:2016? In Obama's Term. (Score:1, Insightful)
I stopped posting, even. Damn, I need a whack with my own cluestick.
Re:Great...Now Tax Payers developing Space Tourism (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:Problems (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:The big deal here: launch costs getting cut in (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 & safety factors.
Space ops is expensive.
Re:Science (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Science (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Problems (Score:3, Insightful)
So there's really no reason to keep rocketry secret, because making rockets -> ISN'T HARD. And GPS pretty much screwed the pooch for everyone. Keep your rocket under 600 mph, and you can use nearly any off-the-shelf receiver to guide your rocket-bomb within 10m of it's target.
Then again, it just occurred to me what Kim Jong Il would do with Atlas V plans... so maybe I am a pie in the sky idiot...
Re:Problems (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_on_Pearl_Harbor
Because both Japanese and American strategic thinking and doctrine was derived from the work of Captain Alfred Mahan,[27] which held battleships were decisive in naval warfare,[28] it was also a means of striking at the fighting power of the Pacific Fleet;