NASA Calls On Private Sector

Palomar · 2005-07-28 11:01:58

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.htm … 511]...for help

*This article is from today's date. I don't see it as yet having been posted, but then I don't follow every thread in the Human Missions folder. Search didn't bring it up.

Am I reading it right...NASA doesn't have the $ to afford even going to the Moon??

This is very sad. It's big of them to be able to admit it, but ... NASA, in this predicament? That once proud and invincible agency?

It's one thing to request assistance...it's entirely another to NEED it.

How much of this is due to financial strain/economic hardship from war, home security costs, etc.? Otherwise wouldn't NASA have all the $ it needs? Has the Fed Gov't essentially crippled NASA?

Yeah, I should probably know the answers to those questions but keeping up with the political side of it hasn't been my "thing."

--Cindy

P.S.:

"Going to the Moon to stay and eventually on to Mars, is a vision that everyone in this community can get behind," said Jeff Feige, the conference chairman. "But NASA needs the help of the entrepreneurial space community to make that happen. NASA's interest in partnering with the private sector is an opportunity that none of us can afford to miss."

At this point I'm going with (just about) whatever it takes to get us there ... and now of course the question is will the private sector wish to work with NASA? Who will be servant and who will be master?

Stormrage · 2005-07-28 12:02:26

Is this going to be limited to american companies? Lets hope not. If the private sector does take intrest in this the increased competition would be good.

C M Edwards · 2005-07-28 13:44:25

Is this going to be limited to american companies? Lets hope not.

I believe that standard procedure for US governmental purchasing is to favor bids by US companies over equivalent bids by international firms. International bidders only get the award if they can clearly beat out any US company's offer.

However, a contest situation doesn't necessarily need purchasing department approval for everything that moves. No bids!

This plan could both spur research AND do an end run around stifling governmental regulations. Who says those folks at NASA aren't geniuses! 8)

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-28 14:05:25

It is really ever so simple... the ISS will destroy NASA. NASA can afford to go to the Moon and on to Mars, but it can't afford to prop up the ISS for another decade too.

NASA projects the ISS budget to actually increase early in the next decade as the thing gets older and work is supposed to be done on it, perhaps as high as $2.5Bn/yr, 25-30% of NASA's manned flight budget.

Assuming that the CEV crew capsule and a cargo varient are built, and we need at least three or four of them a year at the cost of ~$200-300M each, then that pushes it to almost $4Bn/year, somewhere around 40-50% of NASA's budget.

I bet NASA is right now scrambling to find a way to operate the ISS on the cheap... otherwise VSE is probobly doomed in the long run, with private aerospace doing cargo/crew deliveries or not.

Hooray for the International Space Station!

idiom · 2005-07-28 14:13:20

If the same people who ran the ISS run the VSE at least it will be nigh on impossible to stop the Mars mission, which will land in 2080...

What would it take to deorbit the ISS? Like two dozen EVA's just to unbolt everything? Various de-orbit burns for each bit?

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-28 15:05:05

Okay okay, after a minute of being distraught, I caught something... the headline of the article is incorrect according to the quotations cited:

*Biggie:* The Space Frontier Foundation, and the conferance chairman Fiege, are not NASA executives.

The NASA reprisentative, Shank, only said that cost-plus contracting was unfeasable, and that fixed-price contracting was nessesarry. It was not Shank, but rather Fiege, who said "But NASA needs the help of the entrepreneurial space community to make that happen."

Shank did not say that AltSpace was nessesarry to retrurn to the Moon. Also note, that a Boeing reprisentative was there too... this whole meeting was a pep-talk for AltSpace involvement, as well as a (somewhat weak) warning to Boeing (the likly prime contractor for CEV) that old fashioned cost-plus contracting was done for.

Make you feel better Cindy? It makes me feel better.

BWhite · 2005-07-28 19:02:05

I was there, in person, when Chris Shank spoke. Several Space Frontier people are interpreting what Chris Shank actually said. I cannot say they are wrong, however there are several shades of gray here and they are interpreting comments more towards what they want to hear.

"We've run the numbers, the budget numbers, and we can't afford this plan -- we simply can't -- if we follow the business-as-usual approach," said Christopher Shank, Special Assistant to the NASA Administrator, the keynote speaker at the conference.
"The NASA budget is only so much per year. It is just a matter of what it is you want to do with that money. So we, NASA, need to be smarter customers. If we assume CEV was the only vehicle, in a business-as-usual conservative costing approach, that if we didn't take a firm fixed-price approach towards our acquisition practices on how we're going to provide ISS crew and cargo, we could not afford to move on to the Moon," said Shank.

This is my paraphrase/interpretation of Shank's comments including the above, which fit my memory as well:

(1) Business as usual will fail. He said this very bluntly.

(2) Dramatically lowering the cost of ISS service missions (cargo AND crew) was needed to make the VSE affordable within current projected budgets. Private sector crew transfer duty absoutely was needed to stay within budget and not gut other essential but non-VSE programs.

I read between the lines as follows - - Griffin covets a private sector funding source for t/Space. If they will sell SAFE crew transfer anywhere near what Gump advertises ($20 million for 4 crew to ISS) Griffin will gleefully buy seats for every NASA astronaut sent to ISS.

That said, he cannot pay development costs, up-front.

It was a fascinating dance watching NASA guys talk and then watch t/Space guys talk. It may be my imagination, but I sensed negotiation going on.

Chris Shank also was very clear - - CEV needed to have ISS capability in case no private sector guys actually came through BUT he also said using CEV to ISS was NOT the preferred result.

= = =

Jeff Foust (Space Review) apparently recorded the speakers. Therefore, his article should be accurate.

= = =

GCNRevenger, I took the liberty of deleting your duplicate post. I hope that is not a problem.

= = =

Chris Shank will be speaking at the Mars Society convention, on Saturday. Almost worth the trip right there in light of Discovery and foam developments.

= = =

Chris Shank also was very clear - - CEV needed to have ISS capability in case no private sector guys actually came through BUT he also said using CEV to ISS was NOT the preferred result.

This is the origin of the "they need us" posture taken by the alt-spacers, I think.

BWhite · 2005-07-28 19:12:58

More on Chris Shank. His office is next door to Griffin's (as I hear) and one of his job descriptions is to "socialize" NASA plans to Congress and the public (space advocacy groups).

Therefore, what he says is probably reliable information on what Griffin (a) really thinks, or (b) what Griffin wants us to think he is thinking.

Socialize was Shank's term for his job description.

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-28 20:07:04

"CEV needed to have ISS capability in case no private sector guys actually came through BUT he also said using CEV to ISS was NOT the preferred result. "

Yeah, I think that is the message that was probobly conveyed (albeit in code?). NASA can probobly afford to do VSE, but not without a pretty deep cut in the probe or general-science/aviation research budgets. Politically unpopular, but press congress to either put up the money or hush up.

Commodore · 2005-07-28 21:22:42

Lets not forget that any real lunar developement will require private industry to follow closely behind NASAs vanguard to make use of the local resources for further use in exploration and even to benifit Earth.

Of course, they'll do it once NASA proves all the designs and methods, but they'll have to figure out how to do that anyway just to survive.

srmeaney · 2005-07-28 22:20:29

I realy like the bit where the admit

"We've run the numbers, the budget numbers, and we can't afford this plan -- we simply can't -- if we follow the business-as-usual approach," said Christopher Shank, Special Assistant to the NASA Administrator, the keynote speaker at the conference.

. This is precisely why Space needs its own Government with its own currency based on what its resources will support in off world population terms. We need a Space Commonwealth Now. Before Earth Governments and their populations come down with a bad case of "Stupid".

A budget of fifty million billion to colonize and terraform Mars is the only way to do it.

Stormrage · 2005-07-29 04:47:37

I realy like the bit where the admit
"We've run the numbers, the budget numbers, and we can't afford this plan -- we simply can't -- if we follow the business-as-usual approach," said Christopher Shank, Special Assistant to the NASA Administrator, the keynote speaker at the conference.
. This is precisely why Space needs its own Government with its own currency based on what its resources will support in off world population terms. We need a Space Commonwealth Now. Before Earth Governments and their populations come down with a bad case of "Stupid".
A budget of fifty million billion to colonize and terraform Mars is the only way to do it.

Hell yeah bring on the "Federation". Otherwise space will lose it's tranquility. Has our history has shown us an authority figure is always needed. Large corporations are good at giving us what we want and need but they are still evil. They need to be controlled.

Palomar · 2005-07-30 05:04:06

*I'd be curious to see how they'd work out the NASA answers to the taxpayer vs Corporations answer to the investor issue. Or they're supposed to anyway (we know how real life works, right?).

Given investors will always (logically) be more aggressive, proactive and interested in the corporation than the average taxpayer is in NASA, it's easy to foresee just who is really going to be calling the shots. And most/all gov't personnel are already corporation puppets.

So: The taxpayer will help fund something he/she will ultimately have little to no say over anyway. Of course that's probably the case now.

But taxpayers default by not caring, in general...or so it seems.

Stay tuned, more chagrin to follow.

--Cindy

Commodore · 2005-07-30 11:54:22

*I'd be curious to see how they'd work out the NASA answers to the taxpayer vs Corporations answer to the investor issue. Or they're supposed to anyway (we know how real life works, right?).
Given investors will always (logically) be more aggressive, proactive and interested in the corporation than the average taxpayer is in NASA, it's easy to foresee just who is really going to be calling the shots. And most/all gov't personnel are already corporation puppets.
So: The taxpayer will help fund something he/she will ultimately have little to no say over anyway. Of course that's probably the case now.
But taxpayers default by not caring, in general...or so it seems.
Stay tuned, more chagrin to follow.
--Cindy

Well this is why I see NASA as a vanguard.

For the passed fifty years space as been all about Glory and Science, in that order. The things that goverments and industry have produced for these endevours have by and large not been usefull for anything else. Space probes can only probe space. Apollo could only beat the Soviets to the Moon. The Shuttle can do many things but only at heavy hanicap. The ISS can only (eventually) do obsure science with uses we won't understand for decades. Tang was cool only cause the astronauts drank it.

The great thing about the VSE though, if properly implemented, will have us actually making use of things found in space. At first for survival, but later for productivity. Once NASA and industry produces these, others, probably the the aerospace industry, can use the very same equipment that they didn't pay to develope, and can shadow and eventually overtake NASA in the productivity department, as NASAs attention moves to to other targets.

NASA will always be about Glory and Science. But now we are just going to do it in ways that require us to be Productive as well.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2006-03-17 06:55:06

Griffin is supposed to reverse decisions putting a hold on plans to outsource much of NASA’s basic research

but....

Bush's India visit expands technology partnerships

President George Bush’s visit to India has yielded a range of bilateral partnerships in technology, aerospace and intellectual property.
During a visit to Hyderabad on Friday (March 3), Bush also said there would be no curbs on outsourcing from the U.S., stating that he was in favor of more competition, not less.
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/show … =181500603

The Indo-US deal on space research and application would usher in an era of joint exploration between the space agencies of the two nations, former chairman of Indian Space Research Organisation K Kasturirangan said today.

"We have signed a deal and this would enable both ISRO and NASA for future joint space explorations including Mars and other inter-planetary missions," Kasturirangan, also the director of National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore said here last evening at the 47th foundation day of the Indian Institute of Technology.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Indo_ … ation.html

EuroLauncher · 2006-03-18 13:20:47

You've seen this ?

Bush Plans to Outsource NASA to India
http://www.internetweekly.org/photo_car … _nasa.html
IWR Satire

SpaceNut · 2006-03-18 22:33:43

While the cartoon is funny the reality of outsourcing is not. To many jobs have gone this way. The end result thou is less than satifactory when the one on the other end of a help call can not be understood....

C M Edwards · 2006-03-20 08:21:00

Griffin is supposed to reverse decisions putting a hold on plans to outsource much of NASA’s basic research....
The Indo-US deal on space research and application would usher in an era of joint exploration between the space agencies of the two nations, former chairman of Indian Space Research Organisation K Kasturirangan said today.

Hmm...

Now, is this just sending away jobs overseas, or is NASA actually going to arrange a partnership?

In my meager experience, the people of India are actually quite enthusiastic about their emerging potential in various fields of industry and technology, including space travel. In my opinion, the people of the United States of America could benefit from exposure to a little enthusiasm about space travel in an allied democracy.

And, contrary to popular conception here in the States, English is spoken fairly regularly in India. True, I'm half deaf and have spent half my life listening to southern drawls rather than that soft hindu accent, but if the guys on the other end of the phone are telling me something I want to hear, I am capable of listening.

Outsourcing can become a sucking wound in the US space program, or it can infuse it with new vigor. It all depends on what the ISRO puts in to the relationship, and working out the right balance between competition and cooperation.

I think this agreement has great potential for both nations.

EuroLauncher · 2006-03-22 12:25:34

Outsourcing can be good and bad, for example giving many of the Spaceprobes to JPL worked wonders and it created Amercian jobs, JPL have wonderful facilites with a wonderful history in American space exploration
- however giving away booster jobs and outsourcing Moon exploration to India, the Private sectors or Russia could be a costly mistake.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-03-26 05:25:54

The Falcon ended in failure - I wonder what Jeff Bell will say about the alt.space crowd trying to deliver the goods

GCNRevenger · 2006-03-26 20:01:57

Outsourcing can be good and bad, for example giving many of the Spaceprobes to JPL worked wonders and it created Amercian jobs, JPL have wonderful facilites with a wonderful history in American space exploration
- however giving away booster jobs and outsourcing Moon exploration to India, the Private sectors or Russia could be a costly mistake.

Again, its not outsourcing. Whoever said it was is either ignorant or lying.

publiusr · 2006-03-29 15:30:43

The Falcon ended in failure - I wonder what Jeff Bell will say about the alt.space crowd trying to deliver the goods

At least Musk actually spent money on real Launch Vehicle hardware. I respect that.

I however, cannot stand Tumlinson--who hasn't launched ANYTHING, or that Tax cheat Anderson who trys to take credit for 'private' space tourists atop Soviet era boosters. Space Adventures and the Branson-ites seem more interested in "spaceports" (resorts I call them). Even with the failure--I still rank Musk ahead of Rutan & Co. in crediblility.

C M Edwards · 2006-03-30 10:03:18

Even with the failure--I still rank Musk ahead of Rutan & Co. in crediblility.

Why? Has the Pegasus launch vehicle been discontinued?

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2006-03-30 10:37:39

Why? Has the Pegasus launch vehicle been discontinued?

Two problems with Pegasus
1 It never claimed to be totally private, which is what Musk's Falcons are claiming to be
2 Its Payload and Price were not great, it was a much lighter launch than a small Delta-II and Pegasus may have only lifted 400 kgs ( less than half a ton ) for $8 million - 16 million dollars.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-06-12 09:14:20

You've seen this ?
Bush Plans to Outsource NASA to India
http://www.internetweekly.org/photo_car … _nasa.html
IWR Satire

its a good joke

but Falcon Musk rocket was still a failure

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-07-28 11:01:58

Re: NASA Calls On Private Sector

#2 2005-07-28 12:02:26

Re: NASA Calls On Private Sector

#3 2005-07-28 13:44:25

Re: NASA Calls On Private Sector

#4 2005-07-28 14:05:25

Re: NASA Calls On Private Sector

#5 2005-07-28 14:13:20

Re: NASA Calls On Private Sector

#6 2005-07-28 15:05:05

Re: NASA Calls On Private Sector

#7 2005-07-28 19:02:05

Re: NASA Calls On Private Sector

#8 2005-07-28 19:12:58

Re: NASA Calls On Private Sector

#9 2005-07-28 20:07:04

Re: NASA Calls On Private Sector

#10 2005-07-28 21:22:42

Re: NASA Calls On Private Sector

#11 2005-07-28 22:20:29

Re: NASA Calls On Private Sector

#12 2005-07-29 04:47:37

Re: NASA Calls On Private Sector

#13 2005-07-30 05:04:06

Re: NASA Calls On Private Sector

#14 2005-07-30 11:54:22

Re: NASA Calls On Private Sector

#15 2006-03-17 06:55:06

Re: NASA Calls On Private Sector

#16 2006-03-18 13:20:47

Re: NASA Calls On Private Sector

#17 2006-03-18 22:33:43

Re: NASA Calls On Private Sector

#18 2006-03-20 08:21:00

Re: NASA Calls On Private Sector

#19 2006-03-22 12:25:34

Re: NASA Calls On Private Sector

#20 2006-03-26 05:25:54

Re: NASA Calls On Private Sector

#21 2006-03-26 20:01:57

Re: NASA Calls On Private Sector

#22 2006-03-29 15:30:43

Re: NASA Calls On Private Sector

#23 2006-03-30 10:03:18

Re: NASA Calls On Private Sector

#24 2006-03-30 10:37:39

Re: NASA Calls On Private Sector

#25 2006-06-12 09:14:20

Re: NASA Calls On Private Sector

Board footer