“We are proud to officially confirm receipt and verification of SpaceIL’s launch contract, positioning them as the first and only Google Lunar XPRIZE team to demonstrate this important achievement, thus far,”
this signed contract saves the Google Lunar XPrize Contest which would've ended at the end of 2015
it looks like the May 2015 "carrot and stick" extension policy did the trick!
This Google Lunar XPrize started with such amazing hope, grand ceremonies and simulation videos. And, so far we've seen a whole lotta nuttin' in the real world... the video below was from 2009. .. everyone is so hopeful and wide eyed.
NASA issued these Venture Class Launch Service contract awards last week. Rocket Lab got $6,950,000, Firefly got $5,500,000, and Virgin Galactic got $4,700,000
The Pentagon on Friday declined to waive a U.S. law banning the use of Russian rocket engines for military and spy satellite launches, rejecting an urgent request from United Launch Alliance, a joint venture of Lockheed Martin Corp and Boeing Co.
ULA, the monopoly provider of such launches since its creation in 2006, has said it needs the waiver to compete against privately held Space Exploration Technologies Corp, or SpaceX, in a new U.S. Air Force competition for satellite launches. Bids are due for the competition by Nov. 16.
The U.S. Defense Department said it would continue to monitor the situation, and was looking at a range of options, including possible sole-source contract awards, to keep both companies in business and ensure more than one supplier was available in the event of failures.
Bigelow Aerospace is still awaiting word on when their Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM) will be transported to the International Space Station (ISS). Engineers at Bigelow packed up the unit for transportation to Florida from their Nevada headquarters in March of this year.
The module was supposed to fly to ISS in September aboard SpaceX’s CRS-8 mission. However, that was before a Falcon 9 rocket, carrying the CRS-7 Dragon cargo ship bound for the outpost disintegrated during launch.
SpaceX is currently working on returning the Falcon 9 rocket to flight status after having determined that the failure was caused by a faulty mounting strut holding the helium tanks in place in the booster’s second stage.
The Return to Flight mission is scheduled to carry a series of 11 satellites for Orbcomm no earlier than sometime in November. This switch to Orbcomm from the originally scheduled SES-9 satellite will let SpaceX test the relight capability of their upgraded upper stage before it is needed on the SES flight.
CRS-8 will launch after the Orbcomm and SES missions fly. BEAM will be tucked into the trunk of the Dragon capsule. Once berthed at the orbiting lab, the station’s robotic arm will take BEAM and berth it to the aft port of the Tranquility module.
It’s been half a century since the United States finally dusted Russia in the space race, as NASA’s Gemini program ticked off an unprecedented series of long-duration flights, spacewalks, and in-space rendezvous to put America firmly on course to the Moon.
Today, a new space race has begun. But this modern face-off has some key differences, not the least of which is that America's and Russia’s space programs presently depend upon one another. Instead of Cold War-fueled international competition, the modern space race has an all-American flavor with an established company, Boeing, against an upstart, SpaceX. Both firms are developing spacecraft to fly NASA astronauts to the International Space Station, and they hope to do so before the end of 2017.
What once seemed a distant goal is now coming up fast, and it’s not clear either company will be ready as their development processes remain largely obscured. Whereas the Cold War space race played out on an international stage with flashy launches that grabbed worldwide attention, the modern, capitalism-fueled version is playing out largely behind the scenes.
However, last week some clues emerged when both companies were called to appear before a subcommittee of NASA’s Advisory Council, which possesses limited power but has access to information.
Benjamin Reed, who directs SpaceX’s commercial crew program, offered the most concrete timeline of the two competitors. Reed said his company intends to launch a test flight of its Dragon spacecraft by the end of 2016 and is targeting March 2017 for the first crewed flight of the vehicle. Boeing Vice President John Mulholland said his company plans to conduct both its test flight and first crewed flight of the Starliner spacecraft in 2017. Previously, the company has said it would like to fly its first crewed flight by September 2017.
Planetary Resources, Inc., the asteroid mining company, praises the members of Congress who promoted historic legislation (H.R. 2262) that recognizes the right of U.S. citizens to own asteroid resources they obtain as property and encourages the commercial exploration and recovery of resources from asteroids, free from harmful interference.
This legislation creates a pro-growth environment for the development of the commercial space industry by encouraging private sector investment and ensuring a more stable and predictable regulatory regime. This law is important for the industry and is integral to protecting and supporting U.S. interests as the commercial space sector continues to expand.
“We are proud to have the support of Congress. Throughout history, governments have spurred growth in new frontiers by instituting sensible legislation. Long ago, The Homestead Act of 1862 advocated for the search for gold and timber, and today, H.R. 2262 fuels a new economy that will open many avenues for the continual growth and prosperity of humanity. This off-planet economy will forever change our lives for the better here on Earth,” said Chris Lewicki, President and Chief Engineer, Planetary Resources, Inc.
“Planetary Resources is grateful for the leadership shown by Congress in crafting this legislation and looks forward to President Obama signing the language into law. We applaud the members of Congress who have led this effort and actively sought stakeholder input to ensure a vibrant economy and prosperous way of life now and for centuries to come. Patty Murray (D-WA), Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Lamar Smith (R-TX), Bill Posey (R-FL) and Derek Kilmer (D-WA) have been unwavering in their support and leadership for the growth of the U.S. economy into the Solar System. Their forward-looking stance and active role in enabling the development of an economically and strategically valuable new marketplace will ensure our country’s continued leadership in space,” said Peter Marquez, Vice President of Global Engagement, Planetary Resources, Inc.
On September 24 2015 03:23 oBlade wrote: The average annual budget of NASA in 2014 dollars over the course of the Apollo program (1961-1975) is $23.89 billion.
In the 90s the budget hovered between $19-24 billion in 2014 dollars. Since 2000, it's been around $18-20 billion.
The only thing the budget does is give us a clue to what the real problem is. Between 1961 and 1975, the lowest budget was $6 billion and the highest $43 billion in 2014 dollars,
You nail the rest, but the first sentence here is incorrect--that $23.89 billion total Apollo program cost figure is in 1961-1975 dollars. It would be ~$100+ billion in modern dollars IIRC.
Apollo 18, 19, and 20 moon missions were cancelled in 1970.,, therefore i'd say the Apollo moon program ended in 1972. this also makes sense when you take into account Cernan's last words on the moon. if the next manned mission to the moon were going to happen a few months later he would not make such an open ended "god willing" type of statement.
the apollo-soyuz was a totally different kind of mission.
On September 24 2015 03:23 oBlade wrote: The average annual budget of NASA in 2014 dollars over the course of the Apollo program (1961-1975) is $23.89 billion.
In the 90s the budget hovered between $19-24 billion in 2014 dollars. Since 2000, it's been around $18-20 billion.
The only thing the budget does is give us a clue to what the real problem is. Between 1961 and 1975, the lowest budget was $6 billion and the highest $43 billion in 2014 dollars,
You nail the rest, but the first sentence here is incorrect--that $23.89 billion total Apollo program cost figure is in 1961-1975 dollars. It would be ~$100+ billion in modern dollars IIRC.
The sentence isn't incorrect, you misunderstood it. I said right there the average annual budget of NASA during the period of 1961-1975 was $23.89 billion in 2014 dollars. That also includes everything else the agency did, like Mercury and Gemini, X-15 launches, the Pioneer and Mariner programs, et so on. In no way was I passing that off as the total cost of the Apollo program. Not in any year's dollars. It shouldn't be a figure you've seen before either as I used the art of arithmetic to deduce it from a table on Wikipedia.
Nov 16 United Launch Alliance, a joint venture of Lockheed Martin Corp and Boeing Co, on Monday said it would not bid for the next U.S. Air Force global positioning system (GPS) satellite launch, effectively ceding the competition to privately held SpaceX.
ULA, the monopoly provider of such launches since its creation in 2006, said it was unable to submit a compliant bid because of the way the competition was structured, and because it lacked Russian-built RD-180 engines for its Atlas 5 rocket.
The Pentagon last month declined to issue a waiver from a U.S. law that last year banned use of the Russian engines for military and spy satellite launches. ULA had said it needed the waiver to compete against SpaceX, officially known as Space Exploration Technologies Corp, the only other company certified to bid for the work.
Bids were due Monday and the Air Force expects to announce a contract winner in March.
ULA Chief Executive Tory Bruno told Reuters that ULA also lacked the accounting systems to comply with the rules of the competition, which requires bidders to certify that funds from other government contracts will not benefit the GPS 3 mission.
He also said the competition's 'Lowest Price Technically Acceptable' structure meant officials could not differentiate between bids on the basis of reliability, schedule certainty, technical capability and past performance, effectively removing ULA's greatest strengths from consideration.
On September 24 2015 03:23 oBlade wrote: The average annual budget of NASA in 2014 dollars over the course of the Apollo program (1961-1975) is $23.89 billion.
In the 90s the budget hovered between $19-24 billion in 2014 dollars. Since 2000, it's been around $18-20 billion.
The only thing the budget does is give us a clue to what the real problem is. Between 1961 and 1975, the lowest budget was $6 billion and the highest $43 billion in 2014 dollars,
You nail the rest, but the first sentence here is incorrect--that $23.89 billion total Apollo program cost figure is in 1961-1975 dollars. It would be ~$100+ billion in modern dollars IIRC.
The sentence isn't incorrect, you misunderstood it. I said right there the average annual budget of NASA during the period of 1961-1975 was $23.89 billion in 2014 dollars. That also includes everything else the agency did, like Mercury and Gemini, X-15 launches, the Pioneer and Mariner programs, et so on. In no way was I passing that off as the total cost of the Apollo program. Not in any year's dollars. It shouldn't be a figure you've seen before either as I used the art of arithmetic to deduce it from a table on Wikipedia.
On September 24 2015 03:23 oBlade wrote: The average annual budget of NASA in 2014 dollars over the course of the Apollo program (1961-1975) is $23.89 billion.
In the 90s the budget hovered between $19-24 billion in 2014 dollars. Since 2000, it's been around $18-20 billion.
The only thing the budget does is give us a clue to what the real problem is. Between 1961 and 1975, the lowest budget was $6 billion and the highest $43 billion in 2014 dollars,
You nail the rest, but the first sentence here is incorrect--that $23.89 billion total Apollo program cost figure is in 1961-1975 dollars. It would be ~$100+ billion in modern dollars IIRC.
The sentence isn't incorrect, you misunderstood it. I said right there the average annual budget of NASA during the period of 1961-1975 was $23.89 billion in 2014 dollars. That also includes everything else the agency did, like Mercury and Gemini, X-15 launches, the Pioneer and Mariner programs, et so on. In no way was I passing that off as the total cost of the Apollo program. Not in any year's dollars. It shouldn't be a figure you've seen before either as I used the art of arithmetic to deduce it from a table on Wikipedia.
Oops, I must be blind. Apologies!
No problem. I know programs like Apollo are expensive, I just think it's not strictly a money problem. We're spending similar money to the Apollo days now, but going nowhere. Going to Mars efficiently could be done for say $40-100 billion, also depending on the scope of the program. It seems like a lot, but when you spread it over annual budgets, it shouldn't take such a higher budget than NASA has now. For example, if we had skipped the ISS and just spent that money on Mars, we would have already made history. So I'm just trying to say it's about management/politics rather than finances.
On September 24 2015 03:23 oBlade wrote: The average annual budget of NASA in 2014 dollars over the course of the Apollo program (1961-1975) is $23.89 billion.
In the 90s the budget hovered between $19-24 billion in 2014 dollars. Since 2000, it's been around $18-20 billion.
The only thing the budget does is give us a clue to what the real problem is. Between 1961 and 1975, the lowest budget was $6 billion and the highest $43 billion in 2014 dollars,
You nail the rest, but the first sentence here is incorrect--that $23.89 billion total Apollo program cost figure is in 1961-1975 dollars. It would be ~$100+ billion in modern dollars IIRC.
The sentence isn't incorrect, you misunderstood it. I said right there the average annual budget of NASA during the period of 1961-1975 was $23.89 billion in 2014 dollars. That also includes everything else the agency did, like Mercury and Gemini, X-15 launches, the Pioneer and Mariner programs, et so on. In no way was I passing that off as the total cost of the Apollo program. Not in any year's dollars. It shouldn't be a figure you've seen before either as I used the art of arithmetic to deduce it from a table on Wikipedia.
Oops, I must be blind. Apologies!
No problem. I know programs like Apollo are expensive, I just think it's not strictly a money problem. We're spending similar money to the Apollo days now, but going nowhere. \ ... So I'm just trying to say it's about management/politics rather than finances.
or it could be some reason other than finances ... but u make a good over all point though.
in a very convoluted way its sort of a political thing.
We make more history with current financial priorities on satellites and robots than sending people up. ISS is a border case in that we do a lot of science on how people are effected in space and use it as a science platform. Telescopes in orbit are worth more than a trip to Mars (though I like trips to Mars more).
its fun watching NASA dance around while accomplishing basically nothing in the area of manned space exploration. they should just announce they've given up on it and call it a day.
On November 21 2015 07:56 Gorsameth wrote: A trip to mars will do nothing other then shout "we can even tho it is pointless and wastes money".
But isn't that the point? It would be a massive accomplishment for humankind and would inspire billions of people around the globe. That alone is enough reason to go to Mars.
Regardless, it wouldn't even be a complete waste of money because lots of new technologies would need to be developed that could have benefits back here on Earth as well.
EPT
