NASA taps Orbital Sciences, SpaceX for ISS resupply missions

The firms not mentioned here are just as important as the ones that are, as the privatization of space has just inched closer to reality. Rather than NASA handling ISS resupply chores itself or farming the job out to mega-corps such as Lockheed Martin or Boeing, the agency has instead awarded one contract each to Virginia-based Orbital Sciences (valued at around $1.9 billion) and California's own SpaceX ($1.6 billion). The two will be responsible for 20 service flights between 2009 and 2016, with each trip requiring delivery of "a minimum of 20 metric tons of upmass cargo to the space station." The agreements also call for "delivery of non-standard services in support of the cargo resupply, including analysis and special tasks as the government determines are necessary." So yeah, if FedEx / UPS have been balking at your request to ship to a Martian eBay winner, you now know who to call.

[Via TG Daily]

[Jonathan-DBOSS @ Dec 28th 2008 1:39AM]

And I'm still waiting for my "**LIMITED EDITION EXCLUSIVE ~KLINGON~ ACTION FIGURE**" from Mars. Are shipping costs gonna be over a billion dollars?

[Wyatt @ Dec 28th 2008 1:42AM]

Assuming that you survive the 100's of years that it takes you to get here, you'll surely get a discount. Dont worry about it!

[BananaBoat @ Dec 28th 2008 4:12AM]

If you travel there at ludicrous speed, it only takes 1/1000th of a second.

[Wolfticket @ Dec 28th 2008 10:15AM]

http://www.edb.utexas.edu/missiontomars/bench/rt.html
85-260 days, depending on route and how long you want to stay there.
FWIT

[B3astofthe3ast @ Dec 28th 2008 1:41AM]

I honestly hope they someday find gold or oil on mars...that'll speed things up nicely.

[Knee to the Groin @ Dec 28th 2008 1:57AM]

ROFL!

+1
(Switches to firefox)
+1
(Switches to Chrome)
+1
(Switches to G1)
+1
(Clear cookies, cache and history)
Repeat

[JR21 @ Dec 28th 2008 2:03AM]

@knee to the groin
-1 for stupid unnecessary comment.

[Matthew C @ Dec 28th 2008 2:31AM]

Hmm... Interplanetary pipeline... ? oh, and btw, the comment still isn't high ranked.

[Shinigami @ Dec 28th 2008 11:06AM]

But isn't transporting it back to earth like... more expensive than looking for alternatives?

[lifeshalepressureoil @ Dec 28th 2008 1:41PM]

The only oil you're going to find on Mars is likely hiding somewhere on one of the rovers :)

Three conditions need to be met:

1) lots of hydrocarbons (usually from algae, plankton, trees, etc.)
2) porous rock for this mush to build up in as it decays (like shale)
3) oceans or tons and tons of rock and sediment on top of all that to create heat and pressure which turn it into crude.

I doubt Mars ever had enough of any of these to make a difference. I'll toss a bet on Gold, though.

[dale1v @ Dec 28th 2008 5:40PM]

@ knee to the groin

-1 because you probably started with internet explorer.

[Knee to the Groin @ Dec 29th 2008 1:42AM]

Safari

[Errorkid @ Dec 28th 2008 2:32AM]

who pays when (not if) one of these intrepid space-neophytes has a collision with ISS ?

[dan @ Dec 28th 2008 10:44AM]

If everyone was as risk-averse as you, life would never have left the oceans!

[andy @ Dec 28th 2008 11:38AM]

I know the SpaceX plan is to get into range of the ISS, and then let the robotic arm grab them and do the docking.

[Dax Cruz @ Dec 28th 2008 2:46AM]

NASA's feeling the effects of the economic downturn, I guess. That's why they're asking the smaller guys to do the job, since the big one's too pricey.

Maybe Lockheed and Boeing will do "budget" rocket launches, similar what the airlines are doing? I can see that now: Got the rockets, add fuel surcharge, 20 ton payload in the package, pay extra for excess baggage... :D

[1234321 @ Dec 28th 2008 2:52AM]

In Soviet Russia... they post pictures of Taurus II/Falcon 9 when talking about the Russian space missions

[Xenoterranos @ Dec 29th 2008 2:58PM]

Best comment so far :)

[Alexei @ Dec 28th 2008 5:00AM]

Hmm, funny how NASA trusts SpaceX, seeing how they have a 75% failure rate (3 out of 4 launches failed, and losing the all too precious ashes of James Doohan).

Now, I wouldn't pay 1.6 billion for that. >_>

[Benhur @ Dec 28th 2008 5:36AM]

Space station re-supplier needed, size of possible failure - colossal, experience needed - none!

this is insane. they could have just as well given it to me.

[Wolfticket @ Dec 28th 2008 1:37PM]

If it was about who was best for the job they'd pay the Russians to develop it. But /really/ has has nothing to do with that.

[1234321 @ Dec 28th 2008 1:56PM]

there's a difference between a failure like Columbia and a failure like Falcon 1 flights 1-3
the Falcon tests weren't really accidents, they were tests of the new rocket, and each time they got a better understanding and fixed it, now more than likely all the following Falcon flights will go smoothly
think of it similar to US's first attempts to launch rockets, they were one failure after another, but after they got it right it wasn't so common

[aYe aye @ Dec 29th 2008 1:46AM]

Yes, as NASA flew it's first 3 flights flawlessly...

kinda like commenting, try a few more time and eventually you won't fail

[Stewie @ Dec 28th 2008 5:57AM]

.NASA has been planning for commercial ISS cargo services since it was decided the shuttle will be retired.
I don't see why people are making jokes over this it's the best story to come across engadget in a long time.
This is big news for commercial spaceflight and vindicates it.
If this works out it will pave the way for lower cost spaceflight which could very well turn out to be one of the most important advancements of the 21st century.
BTW Orbital has a lot of experience and has launched over 90 satellites.
Spacex has designed the first new LV in the US since the EELVs and the first all new LV since the 80s.
Falcon never had any spectacular failures like Atlas and Soyuz did during their development just mostly minor bugs which is part of the process of designing a new vehicle.
Most of the bugs were guidance software related and not due to the Merlin engine which has proven to be very reliable.

[[e-mail] @ Dec 28th 2008 9:53AM]

well, up till now the US was contracting the ESA and the russians for resupply missions, so really not a big change

[gaetano marano @ Dec 28th 2008 7:39PM]

.

it's an INCREDIBLE WASTE of NASA's money, as explained in this article:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/042moneywasted.html

.

[Mycroft @ Dec 29th 2008 11:21AM]

Um... It's not NASA's money. It's mine. And yours. And his and hers, etc.

[Kyle B @ Dec 28th 2008 9:28PM]

And we're one step closer to civilian launches into actual orbit.