Next US moon landing will be by private companies, not NASA

[TU Curmudgeon]

From The Associated Press

Next US moon landing will be by private companies, not NASA
​

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — America’s next moon landing will be made by private companies — not NASA.

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine announced Thursday that nine U.S. companies will compete to deliver experiments to the lunar surface. The space agency will buy the service and let private industry work out the details on getting there, he said.

The goal is to get small science and technology experiments to the surface of the moon as soon as possible. The first flight could be next year; 2019 marks the 50th anniversary of the first manned moon landing.

“We’re going at high speed,” said Thomas Zurbuchen, head of NASA’s science mission directorate, which will lead the effort.

COMMENT:-

It makes a whole lot of sense to take a project that is expected to cost $X (with that $X coming from "A") if done by "Y" and farm it out to "Z" so that "Z" can do it for "X+(x%)", doesn't it?

Well, it does if you own "Z", but I'm not so sure that it does to "A". I rather suspect that it makes even less sense to "A" if all of the technological benefits that get paid for with the money coming from "A" end up being owned by "Z".
​

 

[biglawnmower]

From The Associated Press

Next US moon landing will be by private companies, not NASA
​

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — America’s next moon landing will be made by private companies — not NASA.

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine announced Thursday that nine U.S. companies will compete to deliver experiments to the lunar surface. The space agency will buy the service and let private industry work out the details on getting there, he said.

The goal is to get small science and technology experiments to the surface of the moon as soon as possible. The first flight could be next year; 2019 marks the 50th anniversary of the first manned moon landing.

“We’re going at high speed,” said Thomas Zurbuchen, head of NASA’s science mission directorate, which will lead the effort.

COMMENT:-

It makes a whole lot of sense to take a project that is expected to cost $X (with that $X coming from "A") if done by "Y" and farm it out to "Z" so that "Z" can do it for "X+(x%)", doesn't it?

Well, it does if you own "Z", but I'm not so sure that it does to "A". I rather suspect that it makes even less sense to "A" if all of the technological benefits that get paid for with the money coming from "A" end up being owned by "Z".
​

great news. well done trump

 

[Mycroft]

From The Associated Press

Next US moon landing will be by private companies, not NASA
​

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — America’s next moon landing will be made by private companies — not NASA.

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine announced Thursday that nine U.S. companies will compete to deliver experiments to the lunar surface. The space agency will buy the service and let private industry work out the details on getting there, he said.

The goal is to get small science and technology experiments to the surface of the moon as soon as possible. The first flight could be next year; 2019 marks the 50th anniversary of the first manned moon landing.

“We’re going at high speed,” said Thomas Zurbuchen, head of NASA’s science mission directorate, which will lead the effort.

COMMENT:-

It makes a whole lot of sense to take a project that is expected to cost $X (with that $X coming from "A") if done by "Y" and farm it out to "Z" so that "Z" can do it for "X+(x%)", doesn't it?

Well, it does if you own "Z", but I'm not so sure that it does to "A". I rather suspect that it makes even less sense to "A" if all of the technological benefits that get paid for with the money coming from "A" end up being owned by "Z".
​

The devil you allude to will be defined in the details of the actual contracts. AP is short on info about those contracts.

Here are a couple of links that give a bit more info:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...or-commercial-lunar-payload-delivery-services

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/moon-to-mars/overview

I would rather see space exploration in the private sector, though I recognize that injection of government cash is necessary to prime the pump, so to speak. Once the pump is primed...once the private sector is on solid footing...the government can step back and just worry about rules and regulations.

The benefits, I believe, will be so wide-ranged they'll far exceed the taxpayer costs.

 

[HenryChinaski]

great news. well done trump

You can’t be serious.

 

[biglawnmower]

You can’t be serious.

what are you whining about now?

 

[HenryChinaski]

what are you whining about now?

Ah you’re just trolling, never mind, carry-on.

 

[Atheist 2020]

Not so fast ... there needs to be testing of the vehicle going to the moon.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

From The Associated Press

Next US moon landing will be by private companies, not NASA
​

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — America’s next moon landing will be made by private companies — not NASA.

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine announced Thursday that nine U.S. companies will compete to deliver experiments to the lunar surface. The space agency will buy the service and let private industry work out the details on getting there, he said.

The goal is to get small science and technology experiments to the surface of the moon as soon as possible. The first flight could be next year; 2019 marks the 50th anniversary of the first manned moon landing.

“We’re going at high speed,” said Thomas Zurbuchen, head of NASA’s science mission directorate, which will lead the effort.

COMMENT:-

It makes a whole lot of sense to take a project that is expected to cost $X (with that $X coming from "A") if done by "Y" and farm it out to "Z" so that "Z" can do it for "X+(x%)", doesn't it?

Well, it does if you own "Z", but I'm not so sure that it does to "A". I rather suspect that it makes even less sense to "A" if all of the technological benefits that get paid for with the money coming from "A" end up being owned by "Z".
​

You aren't good at this whole putting letters together thing.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

great news. well done trump

Would you say the same thing if (for example) he had decided to have 10 miles of highway built (actual construction cost $10,000,000) and maintained (annual maintenance cost $1,000,000) "without spending a dime of government money" by contracting the whole thing (both construction and maintenance) out to private enterprise on a 50 year contract where the private enterprise was allowed to charge tolls amounting to $2,500,000 per year? [HINT - Total 50 year cost of the privately constructed and maintained highway = $125,000,000 (obviously to be paid by "users" and not "taxpayers"). Total 50 year cost of the "government constructed and maintained highway = $60,000,000 (obviously to be paid by "taxpayers" and not "users").]

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The devil you allude to will be defined in the details of the actual contracts. AP is short on info about those contracts.

Here are a couple of links that give a bit more info:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...or-commercial-lunar-payload-delivery-services

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/moon-to-mars/overview

I would rather see space exploration in the private sector, though I recognize that injection of government cash is necessary to prime the pump, so to speak. Once the pump is primed...once the private sector is on solid footing...the government can step back and just worry about rules and regulations.

The benefits, I believe, will be so wide-ranged they'll far exceed the taxpayer costs.

Please list those benefits and show how they will accrue to "the general population" rather than to "corporations".

 

[Mycroft]

Please list those benefits and show how they will accrue to "the general population" rather than to "corporations".

So what...do you think the corporations will hide away anything that comes out of their R&D? Don't you think stuff will show up in society?

Anyway, the main benefit will be technological advancement, though I expect advancement in numerous other areas as well.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

So what...do you think the corporations will hide away anything that comes out of their R&D? Don't you think stuff will show up in society?

Anyway, the main benefit will be technological advancement, though I expect advancement in numerous other areas as well.

In short, those benefits will accrue to the corporations and not necessarily to the general public. Those that the general public do get access to, the general public will pay for.

This is totally unlike whether or not "taxpayers" get access to the benefits derived from "taxpayer funded" enterprises (mostly because those "taxpayer funded" enterprises don't cream off a pile of profit first).

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

So what...do you think the corporations will hide away anything that comes out of their R&D? Don't you think stuff will show up in society?

Anyway, the main benefit will be technological advancement, though I expect advancement in numerous other areas as well.

I expect his point is

Having R&D supported by taxpayer funds, being kept private, for the benefit of the owner/s of the company (ie profit) rather than the benefit of the general public (profit)

 

[Deuce]

Private companies will go to the moon!

*paid for by NASA*

 

[Mason66]

From The Associated Press

Next US moon landing will be by private companies, not NASA
​

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — America’s next moon landing will be made by private companies — not NASA.

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine announced Thursday that nine U.S. companies will compete to deliver experiments to the lunar surface. The space agency will buy the service and let private industry work out the details on getting there, he said.

The goal is to get small science and technology experiments to the surface of the moon as soon as possible. The first flight could be next year; 2019 marks the 50th anniversary of the first manned moon landing.

“We’re going at high speed,” said Thomas Zurbuchen, head of NASA’s science mission directorate, which will lead the effort.

COMMENT:-

It makes a whole lot of sense to take a project that is expected to cost $X (with that $X coming from "A") if done by "Y" and farm it out to "Z" so that "Z" can do it for "X+(x%)", doesn't it?

Well, it does if you own "Z", but I'm not so sure that it does to "A". I rather suspect that it makes even less sense to "A" if all of the technological benefits that get paid for with the money coming from "A" end up being owned by "Z".
​

Thanks Obama.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Private companies will go to the moon!

*paid for by NASA*

And at a guaranteed profit (regardless of cost).

For some reason, there appear to be one or two people who do not quite understand that

[Cost] + [Profit] > [Cost]​

is universally true and that

IF [Cost] + [Profit] = [Benefit A]

AND IF [Cost] = [Benefit A]

THEN it is less expensive to obtain [Benefit A] by using [Cost] than it is using [Cost] + [Profit]​

 

[Mycroft]

I expect his point is

Having R&D supported by taxpayer funds, being kept private, for the benefit of the owner/s of the company (ie profit) rather than the benefit of the general public (profit)

I don't have a problem with private companies making a profit from R&D.

I don't have a problem with the taxpayers contracting with private companies for services.

Here's an example. Let's say I build roads. Let's say my state offers me a contract to build a road. Let's say I develop a new process to build that road cheaper, more safely and more efficiently...and the state approves my process. Should someone have heartburn over me making money on a process that I developed? Should someone have heartburn over the state taxpayer paying me to build the road that they want? Should someone be upset that I might build more roads with my process...and make more money? Should someone be upset if I decide to sell my process to another company and decide to completely get out of the roadbuilding industry?

But as I said, the devil is in the details. I suggest someone having an issue should go look at the contracts. Their issue might turn out to be moot.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

I would be charging these companies out of the ass. Out of the ass. Do you know how wealthy our solar system is in resources. Hell the moon is covered in asteroid impacts. Any company that gets rights to go to the moon is getting first dibs on all the money. All of it. Because in 300 years when we are mining asteroid belts, it's going to be these companies that are the trusted names in space travel.

I wouldn't charge these companies to much up front tho, more like put in percentages for future revenue in the contracts. Gotta play it cool, ya know.

 

[Deuce]

And at a guaranteed profit (regardless of cost).

For some reason, there appear to be one or two people who do not quite understand that

[Cost] + [Profit] > [Cost]​

is universally true and that

IF [Cost] + [Profit] = [Benefit A]

AND IF [Cost] = [Benefit A]

THEN it is less expensive to obtain [Benefit A] by using [Cost] than it is using [Cost] + [Profit]​

I don’t come here for math

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I don't have a problem with private companies making a profit from R&D.

I don't have a problem with the taxpayers contracting with private companies for services.

Here's an example. Let's say I build roads. Let's say my state offers me a contract to build a road. Let's say I develop a new process to build that road cheaper, more safely and more efficiently...and the state approves my process. Should someone have heartburn over me making money on a process that I developed? Should someone have heartburn over the state taxpayer paying me to build the road that they want? Should someone be upset that I might build more roads with my process...and make more money? Should someone be upset if I decide to sell my process to another company and decide to completely get out of the roadbuilding industry?

But as I said, the devil is in the details. I suggest someone having an issue should go look at the contracts. Their issue might turn out to be moot.

Indeed, maybe this issue will be moot, and maybe it won't be moot. We just don't know at this time. The evidence isn't all in yet. I mean, maybe it is cheaper to pay $X+y% than it is to pay $X. The point is being investigated and the report might be released. However my gut tells me that it costs the taxpayers less to pay a higher price for something than it does to pay a lower one - so I'm going to go with my gut on this one.

[With thanks and a tip of the TUC hat to Mr. D.J. Trump of Washington DC]

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I don’t come here for math

Couldn't understand the equation, eh wot?

 

[Hawkeye10]

With as often as NASA cancels plans even many years into the plan I will believe it when I see it.

NASA announcements lack credibility.