Lockheed Gets $485M From NASA To Create MAVEN Craft 94
coondoggie writes to tell us that Lockheed Martin has landed a $485 million contract to create the spacecraft for NASA's MAVEN (Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN) project. "MAVEN is the second mission in NASA's Mars Scout Program — a series of small, low-cost, principal investigator-led missions to the Red Planet, NASA said. The Phoenix Mars Lander was the first mission under the program. Lockheed Martin is the industry partner on the Phoenix mission. It designed and built the spacecraft, and also provided flight operations and currently surface operations for the lander. The mission has been extended through Sept. 30, 2008."
MAVEN not MAVAN (Score:5, Informative)
It's MAVEN (In the article), not MAVAN (which is in the title)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Hey! That was so people wouldn't catch the dupe!
mod parent up (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe take a couple seconds for just a smidge of proofreading, occasionally, before actually posting them articles.
Re:MAVEN not MAVAN (Score:5, Funny)
After all, slashdot had an article about MAVEN only couple of days ago: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/16/0123253 [slashdot.org] I don't think it's possible that they would post another one about the exact same project. That would be a dupe!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Same goals, but one project uses English units and the other Metric. ...
Hopefully there won't any confusion there at NASA
Re: (Score:2)
Sarcasm on the Internet? DO-HO-HO-HO-HO! [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Uh oh... (Score:2)
Wait, or was that standard...
Ah whatever, it'll fly anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"I sure hope they choose the metric system!"
Well, I was thinking about it. Is it $485M metric or imperial dollars?
No need to spend that much (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Forget that MAVAN shit. If you're ready to part with gas, grass, or ass, you can ride in MYVAN for free.
Should be no problem, I had mexican for lunch.
Seriously, No need to spend that much ... (Score:2)
I would've done it for $420 million, but they never asked.
good luck (Score:2)
Hope Lockhead's repository has all the necessary jars, or this build is gonna fail hard. I mean, maven's okay for what I do, but I would hope that for 480 million, they could come up with something a bit nicer.
A new low for Slashdot? (Score:2)
We all know that the overpaid Slashdot editors can't be bothered with correcting the text of the submissions, much less to check the links in the submission. But I have not seen, so far, that they would manage to get the title wrong, too!?
For the record, at this moment the title of this story reads "Lockheed Gets $485M From NASA To Create MAVAN Craft".
Re: (Score:2)
Browse slashdot.org/tags/spellingmistake [slashdot.org] and slashdot.org/tags/typo [slashdot.org].
Spam is Back With A Vengence [slashdot.org]
D2 Updates, Text Message Notifcation [slashdot.org]
US Missle Interceptor Tests a Success [slashdot.org]
The CPU Redefined: AMD Torrenze and Intel CSI [slashdot.org]
The 700mhz Spectrum Auction In Perspective [slashdot.org]
There have been many more, some do get fixed after a few hours.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I stand corrected, thanks. But:
The 700mhz Spectrum Auction In Perspective
I can't find faults with that one.
Re: (Score:2)
Should be "MHz". m = milli, .001. M = mega, 1000000.
What no massive bid war? (Score:5, Funny)
So, we're not going to have a highly publicized 6 month bid process, and then give it to the company with the better plane, and then take it away because the local company is crying about sour grapes? And then have them both re-bid, and then cancel that project because it looks again like the company that start with a B is starting ti whine AGAIN because they just can't compete in the competitive market because their damn plane just isn't good enough. So we scrap the whole damn idea till "later" and make our guys fly around in 30 year old gas filled bombs with outdated electronics hoping that one doesn't fuckin' blow up over a residential area?
What's the fun in that? I didn't get a notice to bid! I'm going to congress!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
you're right. I'm stupid. That was a $30B contract...
$485 Million is like their lunch money.
Re: (Score:2)
Bidding process has been over for a while ... but there was a cost increase of $10mil because of delays related to some sort of conflict of interest [space.com].
(and what the hell's up with the Lockheed spin? CU-Boulder is the ones who won the proposal ... Lockheed's a subcontractor at most)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the first phase of it, with the contract being awarded without much oversight to the local company after the awarding officer is promised a position, then the sexual antics that follow with executives leading to the downfall of two of them. That part is much more interesting.
Re:Low-cost (Score:4, Insightful)
It's in comparison to the older programs such as Viking, Galileo, and Cassini, which cost several billion each in current dollars (but which did their jobs incredibly well). The move to smaller, faster, cheaper followed the loss of the Mars Observer.
What NASA management didn't factor into smaller, faster, cheaper is that you can normally pick only two of the three.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I know what the point of the program is. NASA has been notoriously bad at making thosee goals, which is why I kept the 'pick two' mantra within their own range of options. They miss budget targets and milestone and launch dates (even when cutting corners), and in some cases have only made the 'smaller' requirement by cutting instruments out to make the launch weight or the schedule.
I'd be interested in a few of the old super-probes which, while certainly expensive and with their own variable calendars, ge
Re: (Score:2)
Galileo lost a huge amount of data because its high-gain antenna was never usable, considerably reducing the return on the more than $1 billion invested in it. Mars Observer was simply lost, $800 million down the drain. When you put all of your eggs into one probe, a single mistake destroys an enormous amount. Using more, smaller probes reduces the risks and ultimately either costs the same or saves money. A gain in flexibility is just a bonus.
Re:It's time to defund NASA (Score:5, Interesting)
So, what's the telephone area code for the moon, Mr. Anonymous?
Oh, there is none? Why, because nobody has been there for 40 years. The United States does not have the competence to operate space research.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, there is none? Why, because nobody has been there for 40 years. The United States does not have the competence to operate space research.
Forty years ago the US proved humans could do it, and that it wasn't a complete freak accident. Who else has gone there? The russians? The europeans? The chinese? Anyone else? Oh that's right, nobody. Not because we're so primitive that we couldn't, but because we still haven't figured out a good reason for doing so, except to do so. He3 for the imaginary fusion reactor? Telescopes that do just fine in orbit or with advances in technology on earth's surface? The moon is pretty much a big rock, Mars is the i
Re: (Score:2)
There were lots of good reasons to continue to go there, #1 of them being getting the human race out of the situation of being bound to one planet with its fragile ecosystem.
Almost any disaster here on earth some would survive in deep bunkers, probably more than on an offworld base. If earth is utterly destroyed, we're centuries away from a self-sustaining base anywhere else. Not where we can just go for a vacation trip with pre-dropped resources, but with people and machinery to produce everything themselves. Check out the few attempts that have been made at making a closed ecosystem, which even with huge structures have had issues with food amounts, power, oxygen levels and s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's irrational to consider that the United States, in its current condition, could or should operate a Mars mission.
It's irrational to criticize the pursuit of science and discovery, while being the co-founder of worthy initiatives which promote openness for the purposes of advancing mankind. Call me crazy, but I don't think America's "current condition" should derail established efforts towards these scientific goals.
If you want to argue that sending the money to Lockheed Martin is a mistake, then that's fine. I've heard much criticism of their organization from reputable associates and I tend to believe that there'
Re: (Score:2)
By rights, we really should have a permanent base on the moon by now, and should have already put somebody on Mars. But unfortunately, that wasn't the first priority for the United States. We want to fight stupid wars with insignificant countries. We want 1% of the population to essentially own the rest, and we're willing to manipulate the economy to make that more and more the case every day.
This is not a country that does
Re: (Score:2)
The nice thing about Open Source is that it doesn't require billion-dollar budgets.
Wheeler [dwheeler.com] might disagree with that, albeit the 'budgets' are largely time-based via volunteer effort or corporate-based via organizations who realize sharing software is cheaper than allowing it to be hoarded.
This is not a country that does great things any longer.
You might be right about that, but I find fault in the logic that we shouldn't fund NASA because they didn't do much during the last 40 years. You complain about stupid wars, but what they experienced in 1969 was the culmination of an effort to win the mother of "stupid wars". Whether the Russians or
Re: (Score:2)
We learned how to make good robots.
I think Europe and Japan will make some progress. The U.S. is going to Europe for its next manned vehicle, a man-capable version of the Jules Verne.
Re:It's time to defund NASA (Score:4, Informative)
It's not very clear to me that we learned a lot about manned missions since 1969.
Telescopes, rovers, and orbiters have yielded good knowledge. No?
Orion *is* a big Apollo lander. I recall that it will be capable of landing 3 man on the surface (a 50% increase!). If you were looking for an alternative type of lander, maybe its possible that they got it right in the 60s. On Earth, we the vehicles that are capable of landing include have helicopters and airplanes and not much else. And these don't seen like good ideas to me. Maybe this [moller.com]? The big improvement, though, is Ares V [wikipedia.org] which should enable us to do a big more than just flying to the Moon or Mars and back. With the materials that we'll be able to bring things will get real exciting (you just wait).
Re: (Score:2)
It's irrational to make such a claim when we are currently operating *multiple* Mars missions. (Two rovers, one stationary lander, and two orbiters.)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Despite the ad-selling headlines you've apparently been reading, the "current condition" of the United States is neither desperate nor hopeless.
We have a stable republican government, a massive GDP, an industrious and reasonably well-educated work force, solid infrastructure (utilities, transportation, commerce, etc.), a strong university-based R&D system awash in basic science available to exploit, and a long tradition of creatively overcoming both internal and external challenges.
The financials h
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't get any farther than that before turning off the fantasy channel.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, Wait... let me get this straight... (Score:1)
I wouldn't be surprised if some shill zings me as off-topic or inflammatory, but...
Is this the *same* outfit that got hundreds of millions, if not *billions* for the widely-ridiculed Bertholf National Security Cutter widely derided as a boondoggle and which might not see more copies built because that outfit couldn't coordinate with subcontractors to get the damned communications systems' TEMPEST security wiring in place?
Ok... how can *i* get just $50,000 of that cash without killing, blackmailing, or doing
In short... (Score:1)
Re:In short... LCS/Zumwalt... Lockheed... (Score:1)
Thread of the subject's contractor (Lockheed)
While I'm grateful for one Admiral Elmo Zumwalt for making changes that made Navy life better before I joined (well, a number of admirals hated his guts, and a number he had to fire, IIRC), I am glad it appears the DDG-1000 design is not going to see too many more copies. It is just an ungainly appearance, un-naval looking, and it seems more navies using Aegis want the DDG-51 look (for now...). Every time i LOOKED at the DDG-1000 my stomach growled. It's too bad
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Er... (Score:2)
I think they picked the wrong subcontractor to build the prototype [powerstudios.com.au].
Re: (Score:1)
Wait a minute...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, space exploration is fine - that's actually advancing the state of humanity. What ISN'T fine is spending 20% of the budget JUST ON ONE TINY FUCKING COUNTRY, and that's in addition to the *regular* military spending!
Re: (Score:1)
Half a billion dollars will be the change they lost behind the couch once Paulson finishes bailing out his buddies.
Uh, what? (Score:1, Troll)
Small, low-cost investigator-led missions in an atmosphere. In other words, robotic hang-gliders, gliders and microlights. And this is going to cost $485 million? How many does NASA expect to get for that? The Germans had mastered the basic technology in the 40s, with rocket-launched glider bombs, radiation-proofing by better shielding rather than expensive layouts has been used in space vehicles for ages now, and UAVs have become practically commonplace. Yes, you need more reliable unfurling systems, as yo
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, in the Martian atmosphere, all you really need for this kind of stuff is a collapsible, inflatable R100, the 3D solar panels that high-schooler DID design, and some ultra-light electric motors.
Did you know they have 60mph winds on Mars ?
Re: (Score:2)
The R100 plan is ideal for exactly those sorts of conditions. The original actually did fly through some really nasty storms - quite possibly 60mph or worse - and modern materials and building techniques should provide vastly superior structural strength. The superior shape to modern blimps means you should be able to fly directly into 60mph winds, as you have a far and away lower profile. For the same reason, side winds should be much less of a threat. However, the R100 is usually also described as much st
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like ARES. (Score:1)
No, not that one. This one. [nasa.gov]
Oh, wait, scratch that. It will look completely different and won't use any previous research. I mean they already spent some money to come up with a new acronym, so why not go all the way?
And YET (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Simpsons (Score:1)
Why Mars? (Score:1)
In case "U" might be interested OR UNaware.... (Score:1)
http:www.Xanga.com/avenueoflight [xanga.com]
check out: "The Lucifer Project" listed on my site.
looks do matter (Score:1)
The ships can simultaneously be stealthy and attractive. One example: every navy has standards and many have differentiation in appearances due to national and architectural and service input. Anyway, while i am happy th SK navy and the JMSDF have formidable ships, i wish the SK would effectively or economically find a way to to suck up or give in to political reasons resulting in the King Sejong The Great looking like another Burke clone. SK can do BETTER than THAT. Atago is sexier than DDG-8+.