Towards the era of privately funded science space missions.

[darthgently]

8 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

One thing that's important to note is that when NASA does a science project, they MUST tell us what happened and show us the pretty pictures of the far side of Jupiter and all that.

When a private company does a science project, it's generally in their best (read: financial) interest to keep it to themselves.

I'm thinking of a model where a private contract handles everything but the science and the science aspect is the "payload".  For example, a private contract could design and build all the hardware for a rover and its delivery system to Europa, but NASA would control the rover and manage the gathering of science data. Sample return also could be a private contract.  Similar to a NOAA researcher with instruments and laptop chartering a commercial vessel to the sea floor.  The analogous argument that NOAA science would be at risk because a chartered vessel was involved, or that the private company would somehow not "share the science" would seem very hollow and the same applies to a Europa, or other, mission in my view. 

The bottom line is that basic research already rests on the huge shoulders of private industry.  From the laptops each researcher uses, to the fact that they don't have to grow their own subsistence garden to stay alive while they research.  The free market is so ubiquitous and reliable we often forget it is there and do not give credit where credit is due

[kerbiloid]

If NASA became a private company, all NASA missions would be private.

[Shpaget]

Your average tv watching individual doesn't watch rocket launches now; why would they suddenly become interested after becoming a filler between ads for ambulance chasing lawyers, sleeping pills and hemorrhoid creams?

[kerbiloid]

Btw, about the adds.

The first banner-click-funded space flight.

[magnemoe]

15 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

The major difference in costs between NASA and private is that NASA is researching and building new technology, from scratch. SpaceX got where it is by standing on the shoulders of NASA, hiring the engineers with the knowledge of how to build rockets (Tom Mueller honed his trade at TRW). Much of NASA's hardware (probes) are handmade, one-off creations, and their rockets are built by bloated govt contractors in the military-industrial complex who are used to charging inflated prices to fund black programs, funneling money around to keep congresscritters happy.

NASA learned the hard lessons, and as the original NACA was chartered to do, is spinning off their lessons to the private sector to do what they do best, which is find inexpensive ways to mass-produce equipment. The trick is having a market for the equipment.

Rockets were typically optimized for max performance and minimal mass, with little thought about cost. Private industry generally optimizes for low cost.

I imagine there's also an extra layer of possibly redundant quality control documentation at NASA to ensure mission success. 

But the main thing  is that private industry reaps large benefits from heavy spending on R&D at NASA

Sorry.  /ramble

This is true, however cost of technology usually go down over time unless you add lots of new requirements. So fighter jets get more expensive for each km flown but passenger planes get cheaper as requirements don't change much. 
And no its not only the cramped budget airlines. They are still amazing, we now have busses who looks like airplanes and fly  
But in Europe its an lots of national airlines as it was to expensive for companies to start them, Sweden, Norway and Denmark even pulled together for one. Today its lots of private aircraft companies. 

And NASA does other stuff than space like looking at low noise supersonic planes, or an solar powered drone who could stay in the stratosphere for weeks. 

[Jacke]

On 11/2/2023 at 11:13 AM, darthgently said:

Accountability and distance between decisions and consequences of decisions.  Private industry has tighter, less error prone, feedback loops.  Not politics, feedback system engineering really

That's laughable.  All problems exist to one degree or another in all groups, whether civil service or private corporation.

It comes down to good leadership and organizational culture.  That's what the military has in most countries and there are many that are very competent.

Private industry didn't do enough development of aircraft.  That's why the US created the N.A.C.A., to do what was needed in research.

Beyond LEO and GEO satellites, there isn't a commercial market for anything (and all that was pioneered by NASA).  Going beyond that for a private corporation is another take on PR.  SpaceX didn't even bother to get any sort of science package for the first Falcon Heavy launch, just threw away a car.

[darthgently]

8 minutes ago, Jacke said:

That's laughable.  All problems exist to one degree or another in all groups, whether civil service or private corporation.

It comes down to good leadership and organizational culture.  That's what the military has in most countries and there are many that are very competent.

Private industry didn't do enough development of aircraft.  That's why the US created the N.A.C.A., to do what was needed in research.

Beyond LEO and GEO satellites, there isn't a commercial market for anything (and all that was pioneered by NASA).  Going beyond that for a private corporation is another take on PR.  SpaceX didn't even bother to get any sort of science package for the first Falcon Heavy launch, just threw away a car.

Interesting reaction that doesn't indicate you are open to real discussion.  I don't think you can really defend with facts most of what you wrote here.  What science team would have volunteered to put their baby on the top of the first FH launch?  The JWT team?  It was a test launch.  Gimme a break

[Royalswissarmyknife]

2 hours ago, darthgently said:

Interesting reaction that doesn't indicate you are open to real discussion.  I don't think you can really defend with facts most of what you wrote here.  What science team would have volunteered to put their baby on the top of the first FH launch?  The JWT team?  It was a test launch.  Gimme a break

We should launch Europa Clipper on IFT-2. 

Edited November 3, 2023 by Royalswissarmyknife

[SunlitZelkova]

10 hours ago, darthgently said:

I'm thinking of a model where a private contract handles everything but the science and the science aspect is the "payload".  For example, a private contract could design and build all the hardware for a rover and its delivery system to Europa, but NASA would control the rover and manage the gathering of science data. Sample return also could be a private contract.  Similar to a NOAA researcher with instruments and laptop chartering a commercial vessel to the sea floor.  The analogous argument that NOAA science would be at risk because a chartered vessel was involved, or that the private company would somehow not "share the science" would seem very hollow and the same applies to a Europa, or other, mission in my view. 

The bottom line is that basic research already rests on the huge shoulders of private industry.  From the laptops each researcher uses, to the fact that they don't have to grow their own subsistence garden to stay alive while they research.  The free market is so ubiquitous and reliable we often forget it is there and do not give credit where credit is due

Wouldn’t this be more or less like what is done with crewed spacecraft? The Space Shuttle was built by North American Rockwell.

IIRC this is already the plan to some extent. I think Lockheed is building the Mars Ascent Vehicle for MSR.

2 hours ago, Jacke said:

That's laughable.  All problems exist to one degree or another in all groups, whether civil service or private corporation.

It comes down to good leadership and organizational culture.  That's what the military has in most countries and there are many that are very competent.

Private industry didn't do enough development of aircraft.  That's why the US created the N.A.C.A., to do what was needed in research.

Beyond LEO and GEO satellites, there isn't a commercial market for anything (and all that was pioneered by NASA).  Going beyond that for a private corporation is another take on PR.  SpaceX didn't even bother to get any sort of science package for the first Falcon Heavy launch, just threw away a car.

This is a good point. It’s like saying professional militaries aren’t competent based on how Iraq fared during wars.

Perhaps government space agencies haven’t been given enough credit. The reason we are here in the first place is because of them after all, even if why we are still here and not on Mars has to do with the way things have been handled, albeit not entirely by the agencies but also by the holders of the purse.

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Wouldn’t this be more or less like what is done with crewed spacecraft? The Space Shuttle was built by North American Rockwell.

I'd say less.  The older space companies and military contractors primarily grew and stay alive still because of government contracts and warfare.  SpaceX and other private launchers exist to launch stuff with the government being just one of their customers.  This alters the culture and the solution equation in important ways (i.e. reusable rockets flourishing).  Mostly it incentives them to look for markets to serve anywhere and everywhere all while in competition to do so better than other companies.   It is more based in the realities involved, inherently.

 

[StrandedonEarth]

4 hours ago, Jacke said:

SpaceX didn't even bother to get any sort of science package for the first Falcon Heavy launch, just threw away a car.

 

4 hours ago, darthgently said:

What science team would have volunteered to put their baby on the top of the first FH launch?

Well, I was surprised they didn’t at least put some instrumentation into the space suit to gather data while the camera batteries lasted

[darthgently]

15 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

 

Well, I was surprised they didn’t at least put some instrumentation into the space suit to gather data while the camera batteries lasted

I get that, but I'm trying to remember any other test launch that was criticized for using a test payload.  The swap to the Tesla was a relatively last minute decision iirc.  It was just going to be a standard test payload, whatever that is.  A 55gal barrel of scrap steel welded shut?  Idk

[kerbiloid]

4 hours ago, darthgently said:

I get that, but I'm trying to remember any other test launch that was criticized for using a test payload.  The swap to the Tesla was a relatively last minute decision iirc.  It was just going to be a standard test payload, whatever that is.  A 55gal barrel of scrap steel welded shut?  Idk

No DeLorian around, so they used Tesla, and Falcon for speed.

Spoiler

 

Actually, it's a bigger plan than just spacing. It's a Back To FutureX plan.

[Jacke]

8 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

This is a good point. It’s like saying professional militaries aren’t competent based on how Iraq fared during wars.

That (and Afghanistan) failed for the simplest of reasons: regime change is very hard.  It's almost certain to fail when you stick in a government everyone knows is corrupt and does next to nothing for most people in the nation.  I put it under the term "Winning the Peace", which is orders of magnitude harder than "Winning the War", which is damn hard enough.

 

8 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Perhaps government space agencies haven’t been given enough credit. The reason we are here in the first place is because of them after all, even if why we are still here and not on Mars has to do with the way things have been handled, albeit not entirely by the agencies but also by the holders of the purse.

Indeed.  My memory goes back to a hazy rememberance of the re-entry of Gemini 12, so I've followed a lot of it.  From what I've read, the problem is it's one thing to need to compete in a Space Race with an opponent.  But it's hard to keep the budgets flowing, especially when the opponent cuts its programs and finds other projects.  Then there's the whole debacle of the Space Shuttle, which took up way too much of what budget remained, which was too much thought to be a "production space vehicle" when it was really just the next research space vehicle, one which had many flaws.

[magnemoe]

21 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

 

Well, I was surprised they didn’t at least put some instrumentation into the space suit to gather data while the camera batteries lasted

Agree, now as it would be in deep space they would need an antenna pointing towards earth  and using the  deep space network to get the data, problem is not so much power but that the upper stage had to point the probe antenna towards earth so its not just adding some solar panels. Falcon second stage simply uses batteries for power but you also has boil off so limited how long the thrusters would last. Know that the Apollo lunar lander had an time limit on stages after activation because of pressurization gas. Some early upper stages blew up in space because over pressure. 

[darthgently]

On 11/3/2023 at 3:13 PM, Jacke said:

SpaceX didn't even bother to get any sort of science package for the first Falcon Heavy launch, just threw away a car.

Case in point, Intelsat 708

https://youtu.be/qh8UYkbE55k?si=syjY13960Ec5SNfA

[Exoscientist]

 NASA is now opening up the Mars Sample Return mission to the commercial space approach. The usual NASA government financed approach is estimated to cost ~$10 Billion. But following the commercial space approach it probably could be done at literally 1/100th that at ~$100 million including launch cost.

 I had estimated it as less than ~$200 million using the Falcon Heavy as launcher:

Low cost commercial Mars Sample Return.

http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2023/07/low-cost-commercial-mars-sample-return.html

 This could get ~750 kg back from Mars with the Falcon Heavy as the launcher. However, it probably could in fact be launched on the Falcon 9. The Falcon 9 can launch about a quarter of the mass of the Falcon Heavy to Mars, for all the in-space stages, so estimate the sample size returned from Mars of ca. 180kg. 

 At a $40 million launch cost of the reused F9, then all together with all the in-space stages, the mission cost probably could be less than than ~$100 million. Such a low mission cost probably could be paid for by advertising alone.

 But to encourage participants to take up the task of such a fully privately financed mission, NASA could offer a prize of say $200 to $500 million to whoever could accomplish it, with some smaller incentive prizes to those who accomplish some key required steps. 

   Bob Clark

Edited April 23 by Exoscientist