NASA to Announce New Commercial Space Partner 69
NewScientist is reporting that NASA has kicked their previous space partner, Rocketplane Kistler, to the curb and is in search of a new commercial space partner. The new partnership will try to develop a new shuttle to service the International Space Station. "The GAO's decision clears the way for NASA to select a new COTS partner in addition to SpaceX, whose partnership with NASA continues. Only $32 million was paid to Rocketplane Kistler, leaving $175 million for new partnerships."
Just to the curb? (Score:5, Funny)
They just kicked them to the curb? In my day they would have kicked them to the moon. Yes, Alice, to the moooooon.
--MarkusQ
P.S. And yes, statistically speaking, I probably am older than you.
Re:Just to the curb? (Score:5, Funny)
After all, the USPTO will approve anything nowadays ...
Re: (Score:1)
Well, I've got this patent pending on this REALLY BIG sling-shot, if NASA is interested ...
After all, the USPTO will approve anything nowadays ...
It's not a "sling-shot", it's an elastic energy-storage with single-release multi-directional propulsion device. Your patent is a given with that description.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Not unless you're old enough to remember when that was first run, because I do.
Re: (Score:2)
Rocketplane? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Rocketplane? (Score:5, Informative)
The money was to be gradually doled out between 2006 and 2010 - as long as the two companies kept meeting performance milestones along the way. But after Rocketplane Kistler failed to raise a required $500 million in private financing, NASA cancelled its agreement with the company in October 2007.
types of failure (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are a number of reasons for why they can
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Even so, your comments about SpaceX being successful with COTS money are valid. Rocketplane Kistler and their financial model seemed to have been built around the idea that the NASA money would have been the payoff,
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Even so, your comments about SpaceX being successful with COTS money are valid. ...
The "failed" launch they did earlier certainly got into space and even into orbit...
I'm sorry, but this second statement is incorrect. Although I'm cheering for SpaceX to succeed, their second launch did not in fact get into orbit. It got "almost" to orbit... but "almost" to orbit is not the same as orbit. news and discussion [2robots.com]
Re:types of failure; 4 contestants (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, two of the four finalists are proposing to use those already-existing off-the-shelf rockets [flightglobal.com] you mention. If I understand correctly, both Spacehab and PlanetSpace have partnered with Lockheed Martin in order to use their currently-existing rockets.
For future reference, since it wasn't mentioned in the original submission, here are the four finalists (info from rlvnews.com [hobbyspace.com]:
- Spacehab [spacehab.com]
- Andrews Space [andrews-space.com]
- Orbital Sciences [orbital.com]
- PlanetSpace [planetspace.org]
Re: (Score:2)
This seems to me to be a failure of NASA as much as Rocketplane Kistler. The objectives appear to be entirely unrealistic. NASA wants two separate companies to develop two separate vehicles capable of unmanned resupply of the ISS
To the contrary. Both of the companies who won the COTS contract had already been developing vehicles-- in Kistler's case, for over a decade. The agreement was for the companies to take low-cost launch vehicles that they were already developing, and adapt them to the NASA needs.
It looks like a win-win situation; these companies have proposed that they can reduce the cost of space access, and are using non-government funding to develop their vehicles. If they succeed, it would be a very beneficial thin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, I take it this doesn't mean Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) then.
Re: (Score:2)
Kistler failed to gather the commitments for private funding within the mutually-agreed period of time.
this link [spacefellowship.com] has some info and cool pictures.
this needs an edit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess slashdot isn't becoming but has became a tabloid.
Re: (Score:1)
A/S/L (Score:2, Funny)
New Shuttle? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here's Kistler's design:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/kislerk1.htm [astronautix.com]
Basically, they were started up back in the late 90s, but went into bankruptcy when the economy tanked. Rocketplane bought them and attempted to resuscitate them for COTS, but they were unable to get the sufficient private funds that NASA's milestone required. They attempted to sue NASA to get more money despite not meeting the milestone, but weren't successful.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why contract it out? (Score:3, Interesting)
When there is a world where there is a fluid market of space agencies and vehicle makers, then yeah, let the free market decide. Until then though, let's let the governments "waste" their money by developing them themselves, ok?
Re: (Score:2)
Its all CYA (Cover Your Ass). This way, when the next vehicle fails, NASA can try to claim it doesn't stand for "Needs Another Seven Astro-nuts".
(Yes, its' in poor taste, but so is NASA. It became a pork-barrel agency, first with the moving of after-launch comms to Houston (LBJ) and then with the shuttle program and Martin Thiokol getting the SRB contract, even though it required segmented booster sections and O ri
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In response to your suggestion that NASA choose the weakest of all possible entries into the COTS-I competition, I don't think that is necessarily the case. The "big boys" (LockMart, Boeing) weren't really interested in the competition and all of the rest of the submissions were far and away weaker th
Re: (Score:2)
NASA's only significant "living" experience is the Space Shuttle.
not much of one (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't live in such a world. Not even close.
and which weren't? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
that's still not private industry (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is a free market of vehicle builders - and has been since the dawn of the space age. Boeing, etc have extensive and current experience in developing and operating launchers.
NASA's only significant "living" experience is the Space Shuttle.
Which, actually, Rockwell International (now Boeing, Orbiter) designed and built under contract and in joint partnership with Lockheed (Martin Marietta, the ET) and Thiokol/Boeing (SRBs), which form the United Space Aliance (USA). Its what happens when anything is done by a government agency: contract out to the lowest bidder while packing the project full of pork to spread about and make politicians and their affiliates happy.
Tm
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Erm, that's actually what NASA is doing: They're spending several billion dollars on cost-plus contracts to have the Ares rockets developed according to their specifications. COTS is basically a side-bet, with them spending a total of $500 million (which will only get paid if the companies meet pre-specified milestones) on the chance that private industry will be able to develop their own rockets which can mee
Re: (Score:2)
Why in the world does NASA contract out the construction of its vehicles to begin with??!
When there is a world where there is a fluid market of space agencies and vehicle makers, then yeah, let the free market decide.
Do you really think NASA could design and produce the 250.000 parts or so that go into the Shuttle? A lot of this would happen at subcontractors anyway, it's not ilke it would become a NASA craft simply by taking on the architect role. I understand why you think this has anything to do with letting the free market decide, this is like wanting a custom application built and deciding on whether to go with an inhouse solution or a professional development house. In either case it's public money and NASA rathe
Re: (Score:2)
Why in the world does NASA contract out the construction of its vehicles to begin with??!
Why should NASA be in the business of making launch vehicles? That's not its area of expertise. No other branch of the US government is expected to make its own equipment.
When there is a world where there is a fluid market of space agencies and vehicle makers, then yeah, let the free market decide. Until then though, let's let the governments "waste" their money by developing them themselves, ok?
No, that's not ok. Where's that "fluid" market going to come from, if the main customer isn't buying? Keep in mind also that NASA has a history of sabotaging businesses that compete with its own projects. As I see it, the most important thing, that NASA should be doing, is establishing that market. When it makes its own rockets and ot
Why do it in house? (Score:2)
Your question is akin to asking "Why does Fedex buy (contract out) it's airplanes from someone else, instead of building their own.
Because FedEx isn' tin that business.
Thus NASA, which isn't chartered (in the business) to make rockets purchases (contracts out) to people who do it for a living.
It's less expensive. If FedEx had to have the necessary talent and infrastructure to build their own planes it would fail to br
Re: (Score:1)
New low for /.? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm trying to decide which is worse. The "article" is a page complaining "We were unable to forward you to the advertisement you clicked on.", or the fact that most of the people posting comments seem blissfully unaware of that fact.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://news.google.com/news?q=nasa+Rocketplane+Kistler [google.com]
Re:New low for /.? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
All the best.
Re: (Score:2)
In all fairness, one of those was posted after mine and the other two were AC.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as the target it tries to forward me to is their ads, I guess I'm not missing much.
Well... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Article link not working (Score:1)
Can I take $32 million and run too? (Score:1)
Proper Linkage (Score:3, Informative)
News Worthy : http://www.rocketplane.com/press/070329%20-%20PRESS%20RELEASE%20-%20RpK%20&%20MSFC%20Sign%20SAA%20070329.pdf [rocketplane.com]
http://www.rocketplane.com/press/070213%20-%20PRESS%20RELEASE%20-%20RpK%20Meets%20NASA%20Milestone%20Ahead%20of%20Schedule%200207.pdf [rocketplane.com]
And
Nobs at Pheedo? (Score:2)
Barring further information, I'll put my money on the latter. What a bunch of nobs.
Re: (Score:1)
I think it's funnier that the slashdot editor obviously doesn't use firefox either.
Hehe, do you really think they actually click on the links?
space panther (Score:1)
Read too quickly and thought it said NASA was announcing a new space panther.
That would be sweet. I would totally read about that.