NASA Spends $1.1B On Next Gen Space Shuttles

Beth Buczynski | 05 August, 2012 | Clean Tech, Science

Many Americans felt a sense of loss when NASA retired its 30-year space shuttle program last year. The program represented America’s exploration of the final frontier, and launches and landings were among the brightest spots in our modern technological history.

If you felt sad at the thought that you might never again see the familiar black and white shuttles landing at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, NASA’s recent announcement should brighten your mood. The agency recently announced new agreements with three private space flight companies to create new commercial spaceships that could launch the next generation of American astronauts into space as early as 2015.

“We have selected three companies that will help keep us on track to end the outsourcing of human spaceflight and create high-paying jobs in Florida and elsewhere across the country,” said NASA Administrator Charles Bolden.

SpaceX, Boeing and Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) were given funding as part of NASA’s Commercial Crew integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative award. Sierra Nevada will receive $212.5 million, SpaceX will receive $440 million, and Boeing will receive $460 million, for a total of $1.1 billion paying out as the companies meet certain milestones. The money will be used to develop vehicles that will provide domestic access to the International Space Station (ISS) for U.S. astronauts.

Currently, Boeing and SpaceX are developing private space capsules, while Sierra Nevada takes a different path with its winged Dream Chaser space plane design. When operational, all of these vehicles will make it possible for the U.S. to taxi astronauts to and from the ISS at a lower cost. With the retirement of the space shuttle program, NASA was forced to work out a deal with Russia’s Federal Space Agency that carries a cost per seat of about $63 million.

“For 50 years American industry has helped NASA push boundaries enabling us to live, work and learn in the unique environment of microgravity and low Earth orbit,” William Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for human exploration and operations at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C., said in a statement. “The benefits to humanity from these endeavors are incalculable. We’re counting on the creativity of industry to provide the next generation of transportation to low Earth orbit and expand human presence, making space accessible and open for business.”

Photo Credit: SpaceX

John2321

Many other Americans felt a sense of relief that we were no longer spending $1.2 billion per mission on a program with limited scientific merit. Let’s all hope that the new emphasis on commercial spaceflight moves us faster to unsubsidized space travel.

tony adams

Unsubdidized space travel? You must be a republican! How where is the money going to come from? Especially when there will be a profit motive behind it. What private company has the PRIVATE capital to fully fund a space mission from liftoff to touchdown, Each time a mission takes off? These “private” companies are already taking our tax dollars to fund their projects.
What NASA space flights were of limited scientific merit? Are you insinuating the missions were joy rides? You’re throwing out all of these right wing talking points without explaining how, absent of taxpayer susubsidies, how can a private,for profit corporation can fully support ongoing space missions?

Ron59

I do believe NASA just promised to spend $1.1 billion on helping three companies develop their crew transport systems. Sounds like a subsidy to me!

http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Van-Gordon/658227770 Greg Van Gordon

The point the poster was making is that an unsubsidized NASA is not realistic.

ElectricGuy

You’re right, private companies don’t have the resources to spend this
kind of money. Yet we have spent larger sums in the same sort of
partnerships while developing all manner of military aircraft and other
defense vehicles. And we still don’t cal that a subsidy. It’s a
contracted development program.

If we can give loans to car companies and not call it a subsidy, we can do the same with space vehicles.

On the “per flight” argument, we would be paying for a service. Using the same logic as before, if we’re not “subsidizing” the Russians when we fly in a Soyuz, we will not be doing so on any of these vehicles.

PS. Many on the left have the same opinions John expressed. They are hardly “right wing talking points”.

iizthatiiz

First Obama killed the Ares / Constellation program, leaving the USA actually earthbound. When the last shuttle returned, I felt a sense of shame for my country. Yes, I realized that it was Obama who was killing hope and inspiration for future generations of Americans, but it was the American people who placed this visionless excuse into the White House.

BookReader2

Actually, George Bush announced the end of the shuttle program in January 2004.

rick jones

I believe you are both correct – the decision to retire Shuttle was made during the administration of Bush II, the decision to terminate the successor, the Ares/Constellation program was made during the Obama administration.
ElectricGuy

Bush announced an end and a new beginning.

“In 2010, the
Space Shuttle — after nearly 30 years of duty — will be retired
from service.

Our second goal is to develop and test a new spacecraft, the Crew
Exploration Vehicle, by 2008, and to conduct the first manned
mission no later than 2014. The Crew Exploration Vehicle will be
capable of ferrying astronauts and scientists to the Space Station
after the shuttle is retired.”

Zexufang

Thanks ElectricGuy.

Obama outsourced the manned USA space program to the Russians.
ElectricGuy

So did Bush, for the 4 years between the planned end of Shuttle and the start of the new vehicle. With SpaceX’s work and these vehicles, we should have a new US vehicle that can be used for decades.

Andy S

The Constellation program was a dead end, it burned through huge amounts of money with little to show and Obama, rightly, put it out of its misery. One of the few things to come out of Constellation, apart from endless paper shuffling and pork was ATK’s $8billion from NASA who managed to make one flight of the Ares I rocket, a deeply flawed, questionable piece of equipment.

WK

wow, he said “let’s all hope that the new emphasis on commercial spaceflight moves us faster to unsubsidized space travel”…he didn’t say it was currently possible or even imply it, he was making the point that we are moving toward it…I would say the bias in this reply thread is against John, not coming from him

Russ D. McCammon

Gr8 2 Hear About This!
curtisdacrab

i suppose the bitch is spending 1.2 billion but why it’s only money and the government urinates more than that away everyday supporting every lazy bum in this country and world.
all it means is everyone will have to pay more in taxes. whether in income tax, sales tax, whatever tax “you” will pay. may not be in dollars but it will be something and until the braindead realize there ain’t nothing free that is the way it will be.
get over it.

ElectricGuy

If this results in lower costs to orbit, the $1.1B will be a great investment.

NeuronFlash

The shuttle was a technological disaster, a flawed design that was a death trap. Many are thankful that the badly engineered over priced exploding glider has been retired. Spaces will develop a manned version of their dragon capsule for less than the cost of one shuttle flight.

ElectricGuy

I wouldn’t call it a technological disaster, a flawed design or a death trap, but it was long past its lifetime. The accidents were caused by other parts of the shuttle system, which were proposed for reuse in another configuration, and one famously bad decision.
WK

The shuttle program was a brilliant display of technology and engineering, experiencing tremendous success compared to every other related endeavor of the period in which it was conceived and even outshining many modern systems. It certainly passed its prime long before it was killed but that only attests to the beauty of such a long-lasting system.

jeepngeo

Disney just spent $1.1billion building Carsland at California Adventure theme park. Somehow I think this investment by NASA is entirely insufficient to return us to space.
commoncents

NASA is a luxury the USA cannot afford and should be shut down,this Country is bankrupt !

ElectricGuy

NASA provides a great return on investment and it’s a “luxury” we can’t afford to do without. What we can do better is establish long term goals that make sense, instead of changing policy with the political winds.

COMMONCENTS

I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE ! NASA HAS DONE NOTHING THAT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT THE SPACE PROGRAM, OTHER THEN GATHER SOME MOON ROCKS

ElectricGuy

I presume you mean manned space program. Yes, we could have done most of what we’ve accomplished using robot vehicles (although fixing Hubble and extending its life would have been a right bitch). I guess it depends upon what your goals are. Mine is a permanent manned presence in space, on (or should that be “in”) the Moon, on Mars, and beyond. For that, manned space flight is the core principle.

That said, this means we need NASA either way.

WK

Many of the technologies used each day by you and every other first-world citizen were developed by NASA, and it has contributed amazingly to research in the world. It is one of the most important institutions in the country, and even the world.
iizthatiiz

you would not be using your computer/smart phone to reply to this post were it not for the technological advances led by NASA. Most of the technologies we rely on today, are a direct result of the investments that NASA made to develop the manned exploration of space

rick jones

NASA SPENDS $1.1B ON NEXT GEN SPACE SHUTTLES

Of the three, private space vehicles mentioned, only one begins to resemble the Space Shuttle.

ElectricGuy

Yes, these vehicles are essentially replacing the Shuttle’s space station resupply and crew replacement missions, not the full complement of Shuttle missions. And as crew vehicles only, they will launch on existing boosters.

guest

The “spend” was on jobs here on earth, technology for the future and real benefits that accrue to a high tech cutting edge science program. We didn’t strap a billion worth of gold and shoot it at the sun. We paid decent wages, which went back into the economy, created more jobs and allowed us to collect taxes.
Craig Brunetti

I’d rather see us spend 1.1 billion to figure out how to send capsules up to orbit that can stay there, and interlock, say, to create a long string of cylinders that we can form into a circle and start spinning, to help simulate gravity. This business of tossing people up and down all the time needs to end, it should be for supplies and tech, and something larger for a true shuttle/ferry.

Otherwise, we’ll only ever wade out into the ocean of space, this will never let us be true explorers.
Geared

I love socialized space exploration, but private may be better.
http://www.facebook.com/sam.england.167 Sam England

Space is not the “final frontier”. There’s nothing “final” about it.
Having said that, what exactly have they been up to up in LEO all these past 20 years? I remember hearing about exotic new materials we could develop in close to zero g, alloys, crystals, drugs, etc etc could be synthesized.
So what exactly have they been doing and how come we never hear any details about it? All we ever see is astronauts having fun floating around in the station, or fixing something.
And even if space was the “final frontier”, goofing around in Low Earth Orbit since 1972 is hardly exploring that frontier. We need to establish eventually self-sufficient bases on the Moon, and go from there…
http://www.facebook.com/sam.england.167 Sam England

We’re never going to have “unsubsidized” space travel until we advance beyond chemical rockets.