What is Digg?50 Comments
- ggypsy, on 12/25/2008, -2/+41In 20 years, the Discovery Channel's top rated show is going to be Space Road Truckers. Mark my words.
And it's going to be AWESOME. - AmyVernon, on 12/25/2008, -1/+18Now that's a reality show I'd watch.
- BZWingZero, on 12/25/2008, -0/+13The current launch systems offered by Boeing and the like operate on a Costs Plus style contract. With that the companies get paid whatever the costs are (including overruns) with a guaranteed extra for profit.
What is unique about these contracts with Orbital and SpaceX is that they are not Costs Plus contracts. Orbital and SpaceX only get that set amount of money and any overruns eat into revenue. If they can stay below the contract value, the remainder becomes pure profit, thus providing incentive (unlike Lockheed and Boeing have) to lower costs. - Chairboy, on 12/25/2008, -0/+12Only one way to find out.
One thing's for sure, when there's only one or two companies doing something, there's no real incentive to lower costs. SpaceX could be that catalyst, especially if they can undercut the existing big companies. - xtal3, on 12/25/2008, -0/+12Good for SpaceX and Orbital :) I did a 30 page paper on Commercial Space Transportation last semester and it really made me loathe Unilted Launch Alliance (Boeing and LHM joint space venture) for crowding out the competition. This is a good day for competitive space.
- FuZi0nDET, on 12/25/2008, -0/+10Glad to see some independents getting some love, a little bit of private sector competition goes a long way! It won't be long before you'll be able to catch a half way decently priced trip in to orbit on one of these guys too.
- Codename, on 12/25/2008, -0/+9That's the whole point they gave them money, you never know, they could be as reliable or even better.
- Ymeg, on 12/25/2008, -2/+11I'm just waiting for the day when NASA gets passed up by the private sector.
- trevordj, on 12/25/2008, -1/+9As long as they're transporting square pigs and anti-gravity beer
- nurbsenvi, on 12/25/2008, -0/+7Planet Express anyone?
- DrivinWest, on 12/25/2008, -2/+7The notion that that private sector reigns supreme in all cases, everywhere, always is especially wrong in spaceflight. What is the private sector incentive for Mars rovers, space telescopes, and long-term projects without a tangible near-term monetary gain?
There isn't any, and that's why NASA isn't going anywhere. Competition in the launch vehicle market will benefit both NASA (leaving them to spend more money elsewhere) and private industry. It's a win-win. - BZWingZero, on 12/25/2008, -0/+5I concur.
I see private spaceflight providing a new vacation destination, complete with new and unique sports (Zero-G Olympics anyone?) and other activities.
We will always need NASA, no matter how many private organizations we have getting to/from orbit and staying there. NASA's job is to do the actual science and discovery that wouldn't be profitable to a private corporation but would provide a scientific benefit to all of those still on Earth. - BZWingZero, on 12/25/2008, -1/+6NASA doesn't develop launch systems, they just use a Cost Plus contract with another company to develop and run the launch system. The problem with these contracts is they don't provide any reason for a company to lower costs because the contract guarantees them some profit, even if their costs go over the original budget.
What is unique about these contracts with Orbital and SpaceX is that they are not Costs Plus contracts. Orbital and SpaceX only get that set amount of money and any overruns eat into revenue. If they can stay below the contract value, the remainder becomes pure profit, thus providing incentive (unlike Lockheed and Boeing have) to lower costs.
That is why these contracts are so important and unique. Best of luck to both Orbital and SpaceX.
/Can't wait till the Falcon 9 launch next year. - DrivinWest, on 12/25/2008, -0/+5@ Ymeg
Do you really think that private industry is anywhere near ready to go mine the moon for Helium 3? Not even remotely; the long term gain is so far away and the near term costs are so extraordinary and risky that any talk about the private exploitation of the moon is drastically premature. Investors usually want returns *in their lifetime* and given that there is zero timetable, investing now would be absurd.
Full disclosure: I'm an ex-NASA employee. I used to work in Mission Control for the Shuttle & ISS and decided to leave and pursue my MBA because I do think the next big thing will come from private industry. I want to help make that happen. That said, if we're smart and lucky, we're talking unmanned cargo resupply in the next 5-10 years and crew rotation in the next 10-15. Off-world mining is unlikely to happen in my lifetime (and I'm a healthy 31 year old). - wubblie, on 12/25/2008, -0/+5They don't need to be 100% reliable. They can build fast and cheap launchers, because they are just transporting MRE's to orbit, not 2 billion dollar satellites or human crews.
- xtal3, on 12/25/2008, -1/+6NASA is the kind of pure R&D that we absolutely NEED in space. Many space activities they carry out would not be done by the private sector because they are not explicitly profitable.
- Spinducky08, on 12/25/2008, -0/+4In addition to that, NASA probably looked to these "startups" because they may not have dealings with "unions", especially where Boeing is concerned, postponing contract deadlines due to lenghty worker strikes (which seem to come every 3 or 4 years)
- FuZi0nDET, on 12/25/2008, -1/+5Yes, Boeing and Lockheed have had way more than their fair share of tax payer dollars. Talk about two companies that are way too experienced at sucking as much money out of the tax payers as possible. So you get the added bonus of hungry independents that won't be screwing us out of more tax dollars.
- scamper22, on 12/26/2008, -0/+4long term, it's always better to split your contracts so you can play your suppliers against each other.
- RogerStrong, on 12/26/2008, -0/+4If you start now, it's an investment of many tens of billions of dollars in space AND many tens of billions on the ground developing the power plants - with the return on investment being a minimum of 30 years into the future.
People don't invest like that. Especially on something not only unproven, but where there are some serious doubts about whether its viable at all. There are some serious doubts about those H3 claims.
Ion drive was proven in the 1960s. Everyone "knew" that it was superior for satellite station-keeping. But until NASA flew it in the 1960s, private industry wouldn't use it. With billion-dollar investments, private industry is far more conservative than NASA. Which is why NASA is needed to lead the way. - Super6, on 12/25/2008, -1/+5So SpaceX will do 50% more flights for nearly the same price as Orbital? Why didn't we let them have all the contracts? This is a recession, dammit.
- DrivinWest, on 12/25/2008, -0/+3I love P&T, I really do. I especially like when they attack pseudoscience like Houdini did in his time.
That said, it was clear that they were way out of their element on the NASA episode. Their understanding of what the space program does, who gets the contracts, and how money can be made in space was extremely flawed. It was easily their worst ***** episode (even worse than the secondhand smoking one - and they totally missed the mark on that!).
As stated, I used to work for NASA. I'm hardly a NASA apologist and have no shortage of criticism for the agency based on actual experience. That said, they get right way more than they get wrong, and what they get wrong is usually a symptom of having to go through a massive renovation with every new administration.
You'll find no greater supporter for the privatization of certain aspects of NASA than I. In 2008 however, those aspects are actually few and far between. - visiblepulse, on 12/26/2008, -1/+4Russia will transport US astronauts to the Space Station?? What about "Putin who rears his ugly head in Alaska", as Palin said? Those lying politicians.
- RogerStrong, on 12/26/2008, -0/+3er, "until NASA flew it in the 1990s".
- Arahail, on 12/26/2008, -0/+3SpaceX was founded with the idea of cutting unnecessary overheads, but if they cut too much, it might end up with failed launches. They have 1 successful launch out of 4 launches in their history. So it does cost SpaceX less to do the work than Orbital, if they are successful, and that explains the price difference. No reason for NASA to give all the money to them though, when they only had 1/4 successful launch.
- inactive, on 12/25/2008, -0/+3d-bag
- RogerStrong, on 12/26/2008, -0/+2Penn and Teller's BS episode on NASA was in itself BS. They contacted NASAWatch and others asking only for any dirt on NASA for the show. It was clear that they were planning a one-sided hatchet job.
- BZWingZero, on 12/26/2008, -0/+2The Dragon capsule that SpaceX is in the process of designing (for NASA) is planned to be Man-Rated and eventually will be adapted to carry 7 people to orbit.
Gonna be kinda cramped in there though. - ScooterAK022, on 12/28/2008, -0/+1Amen. It's great to see innovative American companies driving down the cost of space flight. We're finally making progress again!
- xtal3, on 12/25/2008, -1/+2Also Congress passed measures in 1998 which provide directives for selling off NASA assets such as the Shuttle. Nobody wants them. It's going to be decades before private industry will really venture into space without the protective backing of the federal government.
- techweenie1, on 12/26/2008, -0/+1This is great news!!! Congrats to SpaceX!!
- sinrtb, on 12/25/2008, -1/+2it doesn't matter they will do more to stimulate our economy then Boeing or Lockheed.
- inactive, on 12/27/2008, -0/+1Beer doesn't need gravity.
/Professor Farnsworth - docbob84, on 12/27/2008, -0/+1And thank whatever deity you please for that! Cost-plus is the worst idea in the history of contracts. Seriously, how could anyone ever think that's a good idea? "We'll give you whatever you need, no matter how much, plus 15% for profit for you" Yeah, I'd like to be a plumber or a general contractor that gets that deal!
- xtal3, on 12/25/2008, -1/+2The Falcon 9 is as-good or better than competitors' rockets.
- Ymeg, on 12/25/2008, -3/+4Cool straw man! I totally said that.
- analogkid01, on 12/25/2008, -0/+1Apt nickname.
- Yage2006, on 12/26/2008, -0/+1If by won't be long you mean 2-3 decades then sure.
- renski13, on 12/26/2008, -0/+1Or it just goes to the lowest bidders.
- knowmad23, on 05/06/2009, -0/+0crap one of those guys sold me a magic crystal...
- Ethion, on 12/25/2008, -1/+1TNT?
- knowmad23, on 05/06/2009, -0/+0"I for one welcome our new public monie suckers!!"""
- BCCM, on 12/29/2008, -0/+0What? You mean they are no longer trying to shut down the competition? I guess the incoming administration is taking us where we've never been before. What about CFR-1275? Investigation of Research Misconduct. Are they going to revive and start applying that?
http://www.bccmeteorites.com/misconduct-planetary. ... - knowmad23, on 05/06/2009, -0/+0Reliable, Lockheed, and Boeing. *lol*
Just try googgling "Lockheed Boeing Failure"
Bajillions....... - MWeather, on 12/26/2008, -2/+1Something tell me non-union rocket ship building labor isn't all that much cheaper than union labor.
- Ymeg, on 12/25/2008, -3/+1I suggest everyone look up Penn and Teller's BS eppisode on NASA.
While they do not offer the best reasoning, they can articulate and contend closer to my point than what I can. - xtal3, on 12/25/2008, -3/+1I agree about manned space flight. Everyone does. Manned space flight is a joke. However, other NASA functions are more valuable and cost effective. Look at Cassini, for instance.
- Ymeg, on 12/25/2008, -4/+1The materials gained? There is a valuable helium element that can be a super efficient source of energy for Earth.
I believe http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/ ... covers it.
You also ignore investors. People will buy into a company if they believe it will pay off. If I knew Google or Microsoft would be such a hit, I would have dumped my savings into it. While no such certainty exists, there are reasonable clues to when something big will happen.
If the public sees the scientific formulas for Helium-3 as fuel, a company is starting up with this in mind, then people would put money into it. - silophysis, on 12/25/2008, -7/+4They may be cheaper, but are these new companies as reliable as Lockeed or Boeing?
-
Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is