• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NASA to Privatize Space Travel After Last Shuttle Lands

Status
Not open for further replies.
NASA To Privatize Space Travel After Last Shuttle Lands

By SETH BORENSTEIN 07/20/11 05:50 PM ET

Submit this storydigg reddit stumble HOUSTON -- How America gets people and stuff into orbit is about to be outsourced in an out-of-this-world way.

With the space shuttle's retirement Thursday, no longer will flying people and cargo up to the International Space Station be a government program where costs balloon. NASA is turning to private industry with fixed prices, contracts and profit margins. The space agency will be the customer, not the boss.


At least when it comes to the routine part of going to and from the space station, NASA hopes to rely on companies that will be the space version of FedEx and Yellow Cab.

The company that has been leading the commercial space race is hoping to launch its privately built rocket and capsule to the space station late this year. It won't carry astronauts, but if all goes well the unmanned ship will dock with the station and deliver food, water and clothing. And its major private cargo competitor may only be a month or two on its heels.


Getting people to orbit on a new American ship is a different story. Some ambitious companies hope to launch astronauts that way in three years, maybe four. Until then, the Russians will fly astronauts on a pay-for-play basis. Some space veterans like John Glenn, the first American in orbit, think five to 10 years is more realistic.

But two of the major players have surprised people before – the tech tycoons who founded PayPal and Amazon.

NASA has hired two companies – Space Exploration Technologies Corp. of Hawthorne, Calif., and Orbital Sciences of Dulles, Va. – to deliver 40 tons of supplies to the space station in 20 flights. The cost is $3.5 billion, about the same price per pound as it was during the space shuttle's 30-year history.

"It's time. Once NASA blazes the trail, creates the technology and it's available for private companies to take advantage of, this is the time" for the private firms to take over, said NASA commercial cargo chief Alan Lindenmoyer.


NASA met on Wednesday with companies wanting to taxi astronauts to the station. The agency hopes the money it saves by not flying the shuttle can be spent on new deep-space missions that will send astronauts to an asteroid and on to Mars.

Six private companies are working with NASA to send ships to the space station – either unmanned cargo ships or eventually astronauts in crew capsules.

For well more than a decade, boosters of commercial space have said they are ready to take over the job of going into low-Earth orbit on their own nongovernment ships, but hadn't done it.

Now one has: Space Exploration Technologies, which often goes by the name SpaceX and is run by risk-embracing PayPal founder Elon Musk, launched his unmanned Dragon capsule into orbit last December. Now his company is lining up for the first private visit to the space station. The lower and upper stages of the rocket are at Cape Canaveral, Fla. The capsule is almost finished.

"What we want to do is get back into space as quickly as possible and as sustainably as possible," said former astronaut Garrett Reisman, who now runs SpaceX's "Dragon Rider" program.

And maybe a month or two later, Orbital hopes to have its first test flight to the station. First, it has to finish building its launch site at Wallops Island, Va., which should be done in just a few weeks. Then later this year it will have a test launch of its new rocket, the Taurus II, and finally it will use that new rocket to launch its capsule, Cygnus, to the space station, said company spokesman Barron Beneski.

"Just like a person hires FedEx to deliver a package across the country and you pay him 50 bucks, we're delivering a 2,000-kilogram package to space, a few hundred miles above Earth, for a fixed price," Beneski said.

Four companies are building spaceships to take astronauts to the space station on a pay-per-seat basis. They are all constructing ships that would be launched on top of private rockets.

SpaceX appears to be leading the pack. Right behind it is Boeing, a giant in aerospace, which hopes to launch astronauts using its capsule as early as 2014. A third company, Sierra Nevada Corp., is taking a different route, proposing a shuttle-like spaceplane instead of a capsule. It is hoping to launch around 2015. And Amazon's Jeff Bezos is heading a fourth company, Blue Origin, that is much more circumspect about its plans for a gumdrop-shaped ship.

A fifth company, United Launch Alliance, just signed an agreement with NASA. It hopes to get its Atlas V rockets eventually approved for use in launching humans. Normally, Atlas rockets are used to put satellites in orbit. SpaceX is building its own private rockets, the Falcon series.

The crew of the final shuttle flight, Atlantis, left on the space station a small U.S. flag that flew on the inaugural shuttle voyage in 1981. The flag is the prize for the first rocket maker that brings Americans back to the station on a mission launched from the U.S.

President Barack Obama described it last week as "a capture-the-flag moment here for commercial spaceflight."

For these companies, it's also about capturing the cash. NASA will soon be paying the Russians about $63 million for each U.S. astronaut who flies on that country's Soyuz rocket to the space station.

Boeing's Jon Elbon, manager of the CST-100, which is what the company is calling its ship, said Boeing's prices will be competitive with what the Russians are charging. Boeing is also working with Bigelow Aerospace on bringing paying tourists up to a potential private space hotel.

Musk, who also started an electric sports car company and hopes to someday send his rockets to the Mars and fly families for $1 million for one-way tickets, promises to undercut the Russians' price substantially.

For all the talk of launching soon, George Abbey, former director of NASA's Johnson Space Center, remains skeptical: "I'm not sure it will happen anytime soon."


Former astronaut Glenn likes the idea; he just doesn't think it will happen as quickly as the companies do.

"To me that's not all bad," he said. "The government has always stepped out and done the things that private industry wouldn't or couldn't do" and then let companies run it when it is more affordable. He pointed to the Pentagon-inspired Internet.

NASA is hoping these companies are ready.

Just minutes after Atlantis lifted off on the final space shuttle mission, NASA spokesman Bob Jacobs turned to his counterpart from SpaceX and told him, "It's your turn now
."

.
 
V

Vilix

Unconfirmed Member
When there's an economic need for man to travel into space is when businesses will take up space travel. Tourism might be one. Other than that, I can't think of any.
 

Woorloog

Banned
Privatized space flight.
I wonder if the prices will be low enough that in 50 years an average person can afford them?

I wonder if we will have life extension/rejuvenation working withing 50 years... Going to space as 70 year old doesn't sound that fun.

I wonder if we still exist in 50 years.

I wonder why the hell am i always so morbid at night.

Vilix said:
When there's an economic need for man to travel into space is when businesses will take up space travel. Tourism might be one. Other than that, I can't think of any.
Asteroid mining? Knock some asteroids to orbit Earth, mine them, turn them into habitats and micro-g factories.
No idea why we'd do such thing
 

Extollere

Sucks at poetry
Vilix said:
When there's an economic need for man to travel into space is when businesses will take up space travel. Tourism might be one. Other than that, I can't think of any.

Resources/Energy are a pretty big damn reason. At the moment, the costs don't net us enough returns, but this may very well change in the future. There is a lot of shit out there, and some of it might become very valuable if it is cheap enough to obtain it.
 
jamesinclair said:
If the private sector can do space travel so well....

Why havent they done shit in 50 years...?

Its not like NASA had a monopoly.

The initial investment in technology would have been too much for private companies.
 

Extollere

Sucks at poetry
jamesinclair said:
If the private sector can do space travel so well....

Why havent they done shit in 50 years...?

Its not like NASA had a monopoly.

Like I said, little to no returns. Would you spend billions of dollars in an investment that would give your company nothing in return? A government agency can do something like this because they don't exist solely to make a profit.
 

SRG01

Member
If anything, this is a good thing for the space industry considering how bad NASA ran their space program. The disconnect between their managers and engineers is well documented.
 

Davedough

Member
Please, people that know more about something like this tell me if I'm wrong, but I cant see this as anything but a good thing.

1. it creates a new market for corporations to grow and prosper in
2. there will be less government budget regulations on keeping space "taxi" and exploration to a minimum
3. It creates an avenue where much needed space experiments and studies can be done quicker and without too much obstruction leading to endless possibilities.

I, for one, have dreamed of seeing the Earth from orbit. I think that would be an immensely moving experience. If that small achievement could come from this, it'd be worth it to me. But, I also see it as a way for us to get out in space further than our moon, unmitigated by bureaucratic bullshit.

The only thing I really fear is the inevitable space floating billboard that can be seen at certain times of the day. I dont want to look up in the night sky and see a KFC sign following the moon in orbit.
 
V

Vilix

Unconfirmed Member
Extollere said:
Resources/Energy are a pretty big damn reason. At the moment, the costs don't net us enough returns, but this may very well change in the future. There is a lot of shit out there, and some of it might become very valuable if it is cheap enough to obtain it.

Exactly. We've seen story of videogames movies (Avatar/Alien) where man risks life and limb to go out fulfill a market need. Think how advanced space travel development would be if there was something that man absolutely had to have on Titan or Europe. Necessity is the mother of invention.
 
Salvor.Hardin said:
The initial investment in technology would have been too much for private companies.

NASA has been using the same launchers since the 80's. If it's somehow profitable now, why wouldn't it have been profitable then? Getting to 100KM in a spaceplane could be profitable enough, as with Space Ship One. Boosting cargo into earth orbit is not magically going to become cheaper because of "private industry". There are already launchers that provide much better cost effectiveness than the Space Shuttles:

2w7kfhz.png


But getting private corps to make them isn't "cheaper" because they will pass along the cost to the people who are using it.
 
Apollo%2015%20-%20Earth%27s%20Moon%20Salute.jpg


You've done well boys.

Edit: This is the first time I've really concentrated on the backdrop of the moon pictures. That black void is some seriously eery stuff.
 

DeadTrees

Member
See, if the headline was "NASA to Privatize Space Travel Before Last Shuttle Lands", that would have been classic. "The current low bidder for the operation to get the astronauts back home is Wal-Mart, with their proposal to wrap the astronauts in aluminum foil and have them skydive from low orbit into the Atlantic Ocean. The plan sounds promising."
 

Blair

Banned
Salvor.Hardin said:
http://www.mycoolbackgrounds.com/backgrounds/18077/Apollo%2015%20-%20Earth%27s%20Moon%20Salute.jpg[IMG]

You've done well boys.

Edit: This is the first time I've really concentrated on the backdrop of the moon pictures. That black void is some seriously eery stuff.[/QUOTE]


Kubrick's work always gives more on repeat viewings.
 
V

Vilix

Unconfirmed Member
gwarm01 said:
Will the free market step up to the plate? It's communism vs capitalism, folks.

Well, we're going to be paying the Russians to take us into space. Sorta makes me wonder who really won the space race?
 

Deku

Banned
Low Earth Orbit ought to go to the private sector, nothing develops an idea more than the profit motive and private capital.

The new world was discovered on the profit motive. The Dutch East Indies company (Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie or VOC) created the corporation AND the stock exchange because the 'lords' (directors) needed a way to finance the then perilous venture of sending ships halfway accross the world to trade for spices.


NASA needs to be planning bigger and better things.

The real problem is NASA funding ought to be double what it should be so it can do all those big things.

It is TOO small.
 

DarthWoo

I'm glad Grandpa porked a Chinese Muslim
I'm still sad that there seems to be absolutely no progress on space elevators. I loved the concept of space elevators connected to a massive orbital solar-power platform in Gundam 00, although the overbuilding of the elevators themselves turned out to be a little problematic.
 
With the space shuttle's retirement Thursday, no longer will flying people and cargo up to the International Space Station be a government program where costs balloon. NASA is turning to private industry with fixed prices, contracts and profit margins. The space agency will be the customer, not the boss.


So it is going to be a cheap, cost efficient, and less wasteful way to put government money into the hands of private companies. Like the military does right?
 

duderon

rollin' in the gutter
Deku said:
Low Earth Orbit ought to go to the private sector, nothing develops an idea more than the profit motive and private capital.

The new world was discovered on the profit motive. The Dutch East Indies company (Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie or VOC) created the corporation AND the stock exchange because the 'lords' (directors) needed a way to finance the then perilous venture of sending ships halfway accross the world to trade for spices.


NASA needs to be planning bigger and better things.

The real problem is NASA funding ought to be double what it should be so it can do all those big things.

It is TOO small
.

I agree with your post. Especially the second part.
 

mj1108

Member
Extollere said:
Like I said, little to no returns. Would you spend billions of dollars in an investment that would give your company nothing in return? A government agency can do something like this because they don't exist solely to make a profit.

Just watch these private companies wallpaper the aircraft with advertising.

"This space shuttle landing has been brought to you by Pepsi"
 

sans_pants

avec_pénis
DarthWoo said:
I'm still sad that there seems to be absolutely no progress on space elevators. I loved the concept of space elevators connected to a massive orbital solar-power platform in Gundam 00, although the overbuilding of the elevators themselves turned out to be a little problematic.


its unlikely they will ever get made, they are extremely dangerous and carbon nanotubes cant be built into super long cables yet. some other form of propulsion will probably come along and make them unnecessary. but I do think they would be pretty cool
 

luxarific

Nork unification denier
I really wish Buffet or Gates or Jobs or someone else who is insanely rich would build a skyhook. Would completely change the economics of space travel and would make an eventual trip to the Moon or Mars much more feasible.
 

iamblades

Member
speculawyer said:
Who's got that chart showing man's exponential transport technology innovation?


The exponential growth is over baby.


Transportation technology never really had exponential growth though, it's always been more of a stop-start thing with occasional breakthroughs.

As for space travel, we really need to start permanent colonies on mars ASAP, not because that's some kind of end goal, but because that's where we can develop the kind of technologies that will enable up to colonize other star systems. Stuff we will need to know when we develop the technology we need for humans to either survive the long slow trip through deep space, or to be able to create an AI ship that is capable of synthesizing lifeforms(even human life) once it arrives at a habitable planet. If that's the kind of stuff nasa is going to be working on instead of wasting money building chemical rockets that are more or less the same today as they were 50 years ago, then it can only be a positive.

Barring the sudden discovery of navigable wormholes or warp drives, that is what space travel is going to consist of. Maybe you get long term cryostasis cruises where you get thawed out in a couple hundred years, maybe you download your brain into a computer and it prints you a new body when you arrive, otherwise we are stuck in this solar system, most likely.
 

Chichikov

Member
ThoseDeafMutes said:
R.I.P. Space Travel - 1957 - 2011.
I assume you picked 57 because of Sputnik, so you do realize that -

1. the Russians are still sending people to space
2. we're still launching satellites
3. I'm anal
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
So basically tax payers will funnel money to a handful of private companies, and safety measures will be seen as expenses.
 
Chichikov said:
I assume you picked 57 because of Sputnik, so you do realize that -

1. the Russians are still sending people to space
2. we're still launching satellites
3. I'm anal

Chinese, Japanese, Europeans are still launching into space too, possibly Indians as well. I chose sputnik because that was when America dropped a load in its pants and began the space race.
 

speedpop

Has problems recognising girls
Planetes was right!

What do you want to be when you're growing up kid? A space debris collector!
 

Phoenix

Member
ThoseDeafMutes said:
NASA has been using the same launchers since the 80's. If it's somehow profitable now, why wouldn't it have been profitable then? Getting to 100KM in a spaceplane could be profitable enough, as with Space Ship One. Boosting cargo into earth orbit is not magically going to become cheaper because of "private industry". There are already launchers that provide much better cost effectiveness than the Space Shuttles:

2w7kfhz.png


But getting private corps to make them isn't "cheaper" because they will pass along the cost to the people who are using it.

The only way it could possibly get cheaper is through mass production due to increased utilization, but that seems to be the opposite case. It seems that the number of customers/flights will continue on the same growth path and NASA will be doing less so the aggregate is LESS demand which would indicate that it would be MORE expensive per flight.

I do think, however, that most of the expense of getting stuff into space via the shuttle is due to the design for human occupants, maneuver, cargo and repair with the space shuttle. The sad thing is that we will be lacking a lot of that capacity in the future.
 

DarthWoo

I'm glad Grandpa porked a Chinese Muslim
sans_pants said:
its unlikely they will ever get made, they are extremely dangerous and carbon nanotubes cant be built into super long cables yet. some other form of propulsion will probably come along and make them unnecessary. but I do think they would be pretty cool

The realistic concept isn't all that dangerous, except perhaps to the occupants of a climber during a climb gone wrong. Even then, I'm sure early climbers would have some sort of reentry-capable escape capsule installed. Worst you get is some paper-thin ribbon wrapping around the planet, which I can't imagine would cause any major disasters. The Gundam 00 style super-elevators with massive superstructures including support for dozens of concurrently running bullet train climbers though...now that would be a disaster waiting to happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom