5 ms·

It's interesting to see how NASA has been slowly being privatized via these contracts. People used to be rooting for NASA and now they are rooting for a company

by lalos 6y ago

It's interesting to see how NASA has been slowly being privatized via these contracts. People used to be rooting for NASA and now they are rooting for a company that at the end of the day, will do as they please with the technology developed. Americans seem to prefer small government and 'offshore' everything to for-profit companies. In the future, what stops an American company from one day abandoning the USA to another country and leaving the USA without the infrastructure to do space travel anymore? (not familiar if there's regulation in place to stop this?) Or maybe this would just cause the price to rise in the USA for the same services.

nappy 6y ago
This is explicitly NASA's strategy, and it is the correct one. NASA wants to be pushing the bleeding edge of possibility in space, and prefers to contract out the "everyday" stuff or orbital flight, in order focus on deep space missions.
- an_opabinia 6y ago
  The fact that SpaceX is so reliable so quickly is a testament to how great a bet NASA made. The OCO failures come to mind as something that, hopefully, will never happen with SpaceX as a partner. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiting_Carbon_Observatory#Original_launch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiting_Carbon_Observatory#Or...
khuey 6y ago
In the case of rocket launches specifically, ITAR stops them.
scoopertrooper 6y ago
NASA
agustinbena 6y ago
Nasa did that simply because they could not get things done, is not the fault of nasa admins nor engeniers, but the corruption of their legacy contractors and congress pushing to do spreed across the country all the projects in order to give jobs in each state, leading to a massive ineficiency that simply was unsustainable. Privately companies already demostrated they can do much more for less.
walkingolof 6y ago
I see it as an evolution, what is the NASA mission? It is science, at one point rockets where core to this problem, its not the case any more. Its better that NASA spends its money on building telescopes and awesome rovers, than space buses.
kanox 6y ago
This is a defense procurement program, NASA is not directly involved. Claims that NASA is being "privatized" are a bit silly, it has relied on private sector suppliers for it's entire history. The shift from operating it's own rockets (like the Shuttle) is a very good thing and lowers cost through increased competition. It would be better for NASA to spend money on research (like space probes) instead of operating the actual rockets.
- KMag 6y ago
  But, to be fair to the OP, NASA has launched classified payloads on the Space Shuttle, and perhaps other rockets. Perhaps the OP is wishing things would go the other way, with all government launches having NASA act as the prime contractor.
- kiba 6y ago
  There's nothing wrong with the idea of NASA launching or even owning their own rocket per se. The problem is always with their bosses, so they always relied on the private sector supplier and contractors instead of using them only when it makes sense.
- lalos 6y ago
  Not sure how people are misreading the comment, but in an alternate world NASA would still have the capability to sell this same service to DoD. Since that's not the case, this void has been filled by private companies. Given that info, re-read my comment.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    NASA isn’t a private company. It’s not selling launches to anyone. It’s also not a good launch system designer, the Space Shuttle may have been the worst operational launch system design in the history of space flight. NASA is a research and exploration organization. It can buy launches for far less than it would cost NASA to build them. Those savings mean more probes, more manned missions, more science. The real solution is to have a half dozen or more companies competing in various segments of the launch business, leading to faster technical advancement and lowering costs. And we are getting close to that today. SpaceX, ULA, Electron, Orbital ATK on line now, with Blue Origin and another half dozen on the way. And this has led to the greatest burst of innovation and economic improvements the launch business has seen since the 1960s. A Falcon 9 can lift almost as much payload as the Shuttle, at a cost forty times lower. We have the first reusable first stages landing themselves, rocket engines being cheaply mass produced on assembly lines, the first operational full flow rocket engine, the first satellite constellations bringing internet access everywhere in the world. In testing right now is the first truly reusable launch system, which if successful will cut the cost of space access by another ten times, and launch the largest payloads in history. It will also be used to make in space refueling commonplace, if it succeed in that it lowers the cost of access to the moon, Mars, and other deep space destinations by at least ten times more.
rumanator 6y ago
> It's interesting to see how NASA has been slowly being privatized via these contracts. It was always my understanding that NASA is a public research institution whose role is to also provide incentives to jump-start areas of the space-based or space-oriented economy. Therefore, one of its main missions is to provide incentives for private companies to conduct research in that domain, such as allowing research programs to be awarded to private companies or consortia including private companies. ESA works exactly the same way, for instance.
bamboozled 6y ago
In the future, what stops an American company from one day abandoning the USA to another country and leaving the USA without the infrastructure to do space travel anymore?
- Teever 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_...
  - bamboozled 6y ago
    Thanks
KMag 6y ago
If you look at the Saturn V, Rocketdyne built both the F1 and J2 engines. IBM and Raytheon built the guidance computers. For the Space Shuttle, Rocketdyne built the RS-25, Thikol built the SRBs, and IBM built the AP-101S computer. I'm too lazy to see if NASA built the Saturn V fuel tanks or the Space Shuttle external tank, etc. themselves, but it has been a long time (if ever) since NASA could independently launch spacecraft into orbit. Sure, NASA used to act as the prime contractor, and now they're outsourcing that role, but the prime contracting capability isn't among the critical capabilities for space flight.
- jccooper 6y ago
  Shuttle tank and S-I body were built at NASA Michoud, but by contractors (Boeing and Martin, respectively.) Boeing today is building the SLS first stage there, as a variant of the Shuttle ET.
HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
This comment is as misinformed as it gets. This is a DoD contract, NASA is not involved in any capacity. Also NASA never made their own rockets, the fed always decided what rocket NASA will use and awarded contracts to companies on each Senator's state( usually Alabama). That includes the Saturn V, the Space Shuttle etc. NASA provides the requirements and the contractor makes it. These contracts were on a cost plus basis, meaning the contractor had every reason to delay and ramp up costs. The reason people are cheering SpaceX is because they are promoting cheap rockets and competing on fixed price contracts which have much healthier incentives. This is also a fixed price contract so it should come as no surprise that SpaceX is competitive here. Also ITAR is the main legal reason that prevents companies from leaving the USA. Even rocket companies from other allied countries are trying to come to the USA instead of leave it.
- twelve40 6y ago
  That's one thing I don't get. There is a lot of celebration of the shiny new totally private space programs and all, but wasn't the majority of "heavy lifting" always done by private companies like Lockheed and Boeing? Isn't it mostly business as usual, just with a couple of new players in mostly the same game?
  - tankenmate 6y ago
    The game isn't mostly the same, look at the commercial crew program, Starliner failed in its first demo mission, now Boeing needs to pay for another demo-1 mission from their own pocket (they won't get any extra money for the second demo-1 mission); in the past NASA would have paid for another demo-1 mission.
    - twelve40 6y ago
      in other words, they simply got their shit together (making the contractor liable for the actual outcome), plus a couple of new competitors, otherwise things are still ordered by, and directed by the same agencies, no?
walrus01 6y ago
You're confusing NASA launches with the DOD. Totally different thing. Go look at how many things the NRO and its predecessor agencies have put into space with no involvement of NASA over the last 40 years. And all the GPS launches... And things like the geostationary WGS and AEHF satellites. I could write a much, much longer list but that's just a notable few.
rtx 6y ago
I have recently come to the conclusion that benevolent billionaires operating in a democratic and capitalist society are best way to allocate resources.
blargmaster33 6y ago
"It's interesting to see how NASA has been slowly being privatized" We can only hope!
jccooper 6y ago
NASA has always used private firms to design and build practically everything. SpaceX will be constrained by the same things as all the other private aerospace and defense contractors: export control restrictions, domestic production laws, and most importantly the loss--and transition to a domestic rival--of a huge (even primary) customer if that customer should be displeased with their choices. If SpaceX (or Blue Origin or whatnot) manage to transcend the need for US government money, well, good for them. They just created a huge new swath of economic activity, which is exactly the goal of NASA in supporting commercial services.

by lalos 6y ago

nappy 6y ago

This is explicitly NASA's strategy, and it is the correct one. NASA wants to be pushing the bleeding edge of possibility in space, and prefers to contract out the "everyday" stuff or orbital flight, in order focus on deep space missions.

an_opabinia 6y ago
The fact that SpaceX is so reliable so quickly is a testament to how great a bet NASA made. The OCO failures come to mind as something that, hopefully, will never happen with SpaceX as a partner. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiting_Carbon_Observatory#Original_launch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiting_Carbon_Observatory#Or...

khuey 6y ago

In the case of rocket launches specifically, ITAR stops them.

scoopertrooper 6y ago

NASA

agustinbena 6y ago

Nasa did that simply because they could not get things done, is not the fault of nasa admins nor engeniers, but the corruption of their legacy contractors and congress pushing to do spreed across the country all the projects in order to give jobs in each state, leading to a massive ineficiency that simply was unsustainable. Privately companies already demostrated they can do much more for less.

walkingolof 6y ago

I see it as an evolution, what is the NASA mission? It is science, at one point rockets where core to this problem, its not the case any more. Its better that NASA spends its money on building telescopes and awesome rovers, than space buses.

kanox 6y ago

This is a defense procurement program, NASA is not directly involved. Claims that NASA is being "privatized" are a bit silly, it has relied on private sector suppliers for it's entire history. The shift from operating it's own rockets (like the Shuttle) is a very good thing and lowers cost through increased competition. It would be better for NASA to spend money on research (like space probes) instead of operating the actual rockets.

KMag 6y ago
But, to be fair to the OP, NASA has launched classified payloads on the Space Shuttle, and perhaps other rockets. Perhaps the OP is wishing things would go the other way, with all government launches having NASA act as the prime contractor.
kiba 6y ago
There's nothing wrong with the idea of NASA launching or even owning their own rocket per se. The problem is always with their bosses, so they always relied on the private sector supplier and contractors instead of using them only when it makes sense.
lalos 6y ago
Not sure how people are misreading the comment, but in an alternate world NASA would still have the capability to sell this same service to DoD. Since that's not the case, this void has been filled by private companies. Given that info, re-read my comment.
- valuearb 6y ago
  NASA isn’t a private company. It’s not selling launches to anyone. It’s also not a good launch system designer, the Space Shuttle may have been the worst operational launch system design in the history of space flight. NASA is a research and exploration organization. It can buy launches for far less than it would cost NASA to build them. Those savings mean more probes, more manned missions, more science. The real solution is to have a half dozen or more companies competing in various segments of the launch business, leading to faster technical advancement and lowering costs. And we are getting close to that today. SpaceX, ULA, Electron, Orbital ATK on line now, with Blue Origin and another half dozen on the way. And this has led to the greatest burst of innovation and economic improvements the launch business has seen since the 1960s. A Falcon 9 can lift almost as much payload as the Shuttle, at a cost forty times lower. We have the first reusable first stages landing themselves, rocket engines being cheaply mass produced on assembly lines, the first operational full flow rocket engine, the first satellite constellations bringing internet access everywhere in the world. In testing right now is the first truly reusable launch system, which if successful will cut the cost of space access by another ten times, and launch the largest payloads in history. It will also be used to make in space refueling commonplace, if it succeed in that it lowers the cost of access to the moon, Mars, and other deep space destinations by at least ten times more.

rumanator 6y ago

> It's interesting to see how NASA has been slowly being privatized via these contracts. It was always my understanding that NASA is a public research institution whose role is to also provide incentives to jump-start areas of the space-based or space-oriented economy. Therefore, one of its main missions is to provide incentives for private companies to conduct research in that domain, such as allowing research programs to be awarded to private companies or consortia including private companies. ESA works exactly the same way, for instance.

bamboozled 6y ago

In the future, what stops an American company from one day abandoning the USA to another country and leaving the USA without the infrastructure to do space travel anymore?

Teever 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_...
- bamboozled 6y ago
  Thanks

KMag 6y ago

If you look at the Saturn V, Rocketdyne built both the F1 and J2 engines. IBM and Raytheon built the guidance computers. For the Space Shuttle, Rocketdyne built the RS-25, Thikol built the SRBs, and IBM built the AP-101S computer. I'm too lazy to see if NASA built the Saturn V fuel tanks or the Space Shuttle external tank, etc. themselves, but it has been a long time (if ever) since NASA could independently launch spacecraft into orbit. Sure, NASA used to act as the prime contractor, and now they're outsourcing that role, but the prime contracting capability isn't among the critical capabilities for space flight.

jccooper 6y ago
Shuttle tank and S-I body were built at NASA Michoud, but by contractors (Boeing and Martin, respectively.) Boeing today is building the SLS first stage there, as a variant of the Shuttle ET.

HeadsUpHigh 6y ago

This comment is as misinformed as it gets. This is a DoD contract, NASA is not involved in any capacity. Also NASA never made their own rockets, the fed always decided what rocket NASA will use and awarded contracts to companies on each Senator's state( usually Alabama). That includes the Saturn V, the Space Shuttle etc. NASA provides the requirements and the contractor makes it. These contracts were on a cost plus basis, meaning the contractor had every reason to delay and ramp up costs. The reason people are cheering SpaceX is because they are promoting cheap rockets and competing on fixed price contracts which have much healthier incentives. This is also a fixed price contract so it should come as no surprise that SpaceX is competitive here. Also ITAR is the main legal reason that prevents companies from leaving the USA. Even rocket companies from other allied countries are trying to come to the USA instead of leave it.

twelve40 6y ago
That's one thing I don't get. There is a lot of celebration of the shiny new totally private space programs and all, but wasn't the majority of "heavy lifting" always done by private companies like Lockheed and Boeing? Isn't it mostly business as usual, just with a couple of new players in mostly the same game?
- tankenmate 6y ago
  The game isn't mostly the same, look at the commercial crew program, Starliner failed in its first demo mission, now Boeing needs to pay for another demo-1 mission from their own pocket (they won't get any extra money for the second demo-1 mission); in the past NASA would have paid for another demo-1 mission.
  - twelve40 6y ago
    in other words, they simply got their shit together (making the contractor liable for the actual outcome), plus a couple of new competitors, otherwise things are still ordered by, and directed by the same agencies, no?

walrus01 6y ago

You're confusing NASA launches with the DOD. Totally different thing. Go look at how many things the NRO and its predecessor agencies have put into space with no involvement of NASA over the last 40 years. And all the GPS launches... And things like the geostationary WGS and AEHF satellites. I could write a much, much longer list but that's just a notable few.

rtx 6y ago

I have recently come to the conclusion that benevolent billionaires operating in a democratic and capitalist society are best way to allocate resources.

blargmaster33 6y ago

"It's interesting to see how NASA has been slowly being privatized" We can only hope!

jccooper 6y ago

NASA has always used private firms to design and build practically everything. SpaceX will be constrained by the same things as all the other private aerospace and defense contractors: export control restrictions, domestic production laws, and most importantly the loss--and transition to a domestic rival--of a huge (even primary) customer if that customer should be displeased with their choices. If SpaceX (or Blue Origin or whatnot) manage to transcend the need for US government money, well, good for them. They just created a huge new swath of economic activity, which is exactly the goal of NASA in supporting commercial services.