NASA Is Outsourcing Its Next Moon Lander To a Private Company (pressherald.com) 83
NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine announced Thursday that nine U.S. companies will compete to deliver experiments to the lunar surface. The space agency will buy the service and let private industry work out the details on getting there, he said. The Press Herald reports: The goal is to get small science and technology experiments to the surface of the moon as soon as possible. The first flight could be next year; 2019 marks the 50th anniversary of the first manned moon landing. "We're going at high speed," said Thomas Zurbuchen, head of NASA's science mission directorate, which will lead the effort. NASA officials said the research will help get astronauts back to the moon more quickly and keep them safer once they're there. The initial deliveries likely will include radiation monitors, as well as laser reflectors for gravity and other types of measurements, Zurbuchen said. Bridenstine said it will be up to the companies to arrange their own rocket rides. NASA will be one of multiple customers using these lunar services.
Grumman isn't private? (Score:5, Informative)
Last I checked, Grumman was a private company when the 1st lander was made.
Re:Grumman isn't private? (Score:4, Informative)
Last I checked, Grumman was a private company when the 1st lander was made.
Not the same. Grumman built the lander to NASA's design spec, and then turned it over NASA, and NASA managed the landing.
This time, NASA will just give the mission, and the private companies will figure out the best way to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Grumman isn't private? (Score:5, Funny)
Using Agile you can continue to update the rocket all the way to the moon!
Re: (Score:2)
And not just any "private companies"; usual suspect, too big to fail, politically connected defense contractors who routinely get paid "performance bonuses" for projects that are behind schedule and over budget.
Re: (Score:1)
Not the same. Grumman built the lander to NASA's design spec, and then turned it over NASA, and NASA managed the landing.
This time, NASA will just give the mission, and the private companies will figure out the best way to do it.
Not quite - Thomas Kelly who was a Grumman employee chiefly designed the lunar lander.
Re: (Score:2)
I foresee dead astronauts. Redundancies cost money, and unless it's very clearly in the specs, it won't be there.
But hey, maybe we learn a thing or two from it...
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably, you're talking about the redundant rocket engines in the original LM? What's that? The LM didn't have redundant rocket engines? But..but..how is this even possible, that the Government, of all people, could skip the redundancies that EVIL Private Industry would skip to save money???
Re: (Score:2)
You identified the probably only part on the LEM that wasn't at least once redundant. And it wasn't mostly because it was near impossible for that rocket to NOT fire. Hypergolic fuels have that property.
Re: (Score:3)
I foresee dead astronauts.
Then you should re-read the summary. The missions are for robots and instruments. There are no astronauts.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that NASA isn't paying for the parts per spec, but the complete mission as a whole. Previously projects were designed down to the single integration item by a committee including congressmen and the private contractors (who are paying them). The net result is a system where the parts are broken up and scattered by congressional district. That's how the shuttle boosters (and now the solid rocket portion of the SLS, or whatever they are calling it now) are made in Utah.
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked, Grumman was a private company when the 1st lander was made.
I understand Ford Aerospace was building all or part of the last of them, as well.
Don't care who (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
RTFS. These landings are for robots and instruments not people.
Re:Don't care who (Score:5, Interesting)
You should.
NASA landing a man on the moon meant that a lot of technology and progress became available to a lot of US companies. If a corporation develops and invents those things alone, you really think they would share that with anyone? They'll take taxpayer money to fund their R&D without giving any of those developments back.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything is under ITAR regulations, it's not like any company can call up NASA and request a USB stick of design plans. I'm very curious how much direct tech transfer there was to SpaceX.
Re: (Score:2)
People could (and did) move freely from NASA to private companies without any gag contracts. Try to find me something like that in the private sector.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll take taxpayer money to fund their R&D without giving any of those developments back.
Interesting point, it seemed like back in the days of real space technology spinoffs that also included where individuals can get real techie information to do stuff. One example is Larry Baysinger W4EJA who built a VHF receiver to eavesdrop on Apollo 11 radio transmissions, http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropp... [arrl.org] based on available information at the time. These days almost everything on the internet is generic illustrations from PPT presentations.
The ***good stuff*** is kept closely guarded by these private c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some of my earliest fond memories were sitting with my family in front of our tv and watching the landings in all their black and white detail.
Same here, but because we lived in Cocoa Beach, we watched the launches outside. There has yet to be anything NASA has put up that was as impressive as a Saturn V launch. Even 15 miles away, they still made the ground shake, and Apollo 17 (a nighttime launch) lit up the sky almost like daylight.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of my earliest fond memories were sitting with my family in front of our tv and watching the landings in all their black and white detail.
Same here, but because we lived in Cocoa Beach, we watched the launches outside. There has yet to be anything NASA has put up that was as impressive as a Saturn V launch. Even 15 miles away, they still made the ground shake, and Apollo 17 (a nighttime launch) lit up the sky almost like daylight.
when I was in bootcamp I was lucky enough to see a shuttle launch and even many miles away you could hear the roar, I can only imagine the sound/feeling of seeing a Saturn 5 go up, Man that would be so awesome. Watching those 3 letters go past the camera was pretty damn cool too though. "U then S then A" Back then it was both new and a spectacle. The shuttle era became almost common place with little to no fanfare. Almost like watching a space bus go up. A really COOL space bus but still.
SpaceX :) (Score:2)
Re:In their dreams (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
20 billion a year (Score:3)
And we can't send people to ISS without Russian help. This is a national embarrassment. Russians spend one tenth that. That having been said, it's also like 10 days of Pentagon budget. In any case, I'm pretty sure SpaceX will make NASA obsolete within about a decade.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
>You Musk fanboys are nuts. SpaceX just launches satellites. It doesn't do a hundredth of what NASA does.
SpaceX can do what NASA can't.
SpaceX can do what NASA used to be able to do, for a tiny fraction of what it used to cost NASA.
You're right. It's nuts to hire someone who can do something you can't do, faster and cheaper than anyone else. What madness.
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX can do what NASA can't.
SpaceX can do what NASA used to be able to do, for a tiny fraction of what it used to cost NASA.
I must have missed the news, but when did SpaceX put a man on the moon, landed probes on other planets, or did any deep space exploration missions?
Re: (Score:3)
when did nasa launch a car into space just because it could?
There are several cars on the moon, launched by NASA.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe NASA needs a little more focus then.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure SpaceX will make NASA obsolete within about a decade.
It won't.
NASA is a research facility.
SpaceX is a commercial business.
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX is also a research facility. Last I checked they're doing a lot of research on reusable rocketry, very large rockets, and other such stuff that NASA can't be bothered to pursue anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh ... the nitpicking again ...
Re: 20 billion a year (Score:2)
WTF (Score:2)
Moon landing has Elon Muskâ(TM)s name written (Score:2)
Space X l has reaction rocket soft landing in earth gravity coded and done in hardware. Moon gravity shoudl be do-able quickly. And who else has ready to go reliable launch capacity at any Scale as these contracts require? Look for a Space X trans lunar orbital mission soon?
"We're going at high speed" (Score:2)
Why are you NASA nitwits going at high speed? You've had 49 years to prepare for the celebration of the July, 1969, moon landing. I fully realize the NASA of today is more nearly the gang that couldn't shoot straight, but by going at high speed, you are guaranteed to waste my tax dollars and to jeopardize the chances of a successful mission.
It's way past tim
Oxymoron (Score:2)
The first flight could be next year; 2019 marks the 50th anniversary of the first manned moon landing. "We're going at high speed," said Thomas Zurbuchen
So SpaceX then? (Score:2)
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:2)
Great. Outsource more government activities to private industry. 'Cause that always works out well. I mean, look how swimmingly the prison industrial complex is working out. Or logistics for the military.
What's next? Outsourcing the IRS? Hoo boy.
Here is the list (Score:2)
The nine companies, representing seven states, are:
Astrobiotic Technology Inc., Pittsburgh;
Deep Space Systems, Littleton, Colorado;
Draper, Cambridge, Massachusetts;
Firefly Aerospace Inc.,
Cedar Park, Texas;
Intuitive Machines, Houston;
Lockheed Martin, Littleton;
Masten Space Systems Inc., Mojave, California;
Moon Express, Cape Canaveral; and
Orbit Beyond, Edison, New Jersey.