Lunar lander deal struck

steve smyth — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:01:53 GMT

Half a mil at NASA's billable hour rate doesn't buy a new uniform patch as far as I know.
Does anyone know what they charge?
Fascinating!

Lunar lander deal struck

dn, st paul, minnesota — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 01:24:37 GMT

you would think that they would start with what they have learned from the apollo lunar module, and work from there. upgrade the computers, and make it a little bigger.

Lunar lander deal struck

GLXP — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 01:31:01 GMT

http://spacefellowship.com/Forum/about7639.html

Lunar lander deal struck

steve smyth — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:49:10 GMT

Oh yeah...if a participant in this NASA supported project gets behind on the labor bill, does NASA own the project?
It's the only way they can ever gain access to new ideas.
Remember these guys appointed themselves the ADMINISTRATORS of Space a long time ago...and they control the high ground...why bother with anything new other than better weapons?
Get NASA out of this ASAP!
Otherwise all the new stuff gets consumed and tossed on a shelf like an optioned screenplay from somebody's second cousin.
While nepotism and old boyness rules...
Betcha!

Lunar lander deal struck

Derek - Marquette, MI — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:36:55 GMT

Hey, at least the taxpayers are not funding a public corporation! I'd rather have the commercial guys doing the R&D on this stuff anyway.

Lunar lander deal struck

Serge, Atlanta, GA — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:16:58 GMT

Putting the specific numbers aside, just the fact that money is now flowing the other way is proof that a national policy of government sponsored exploration and basic scientific research can eventually pay off. NASA would not have the technical expertise that it has to offer now were it not for decades of pursuit of basic science and the technology necessary for its intrumentation. Not that NASA will (or should) ever make a profit at the expense of its primary mission, but the fact that someone out there cares enough to pay for it certainly means it has economic value.

Lunar lander deal struck

Tom, Florida — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:41:29 GMT

@Steve Smyth: It depends on the salary of the person NASA sends for technical support.

Lunar lander deal struck

John E Horack St Charles MO — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:02:44 GMT

It seems to me that any use of datafrom NASA would save a company a lot of money in development cost. Maybe the auto industry should look at NASA as a way to develop future cars.

Lunar lander deal struck

PC — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:09:06 GMT

Seems to me this plan is in direct contradiction to the x prize priciples. Isn't the x prize supposed to be what private industry and individuals can do without government help or resources? NASA has already been to the moon many many years ago with both people and equipment so what does this prove? I would hope that someone at GLXP would say something about this as it pretty much makes the competition for private ventures moot. Just my 2 cents.

Lunar lander deal struck

Jim — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:04:07 GMT

As a guess they charge anywhere from $100 to $250 an hour. Those are loaded rates (incl salary, gsa, facilities, benefits(retirement, medical) etc...)

NASA may be using some of its civilian contractors to help out instead of government employees.

$250 an hour means 2000 hours. About 1 man year worth of hours.

Lunar lander deal struck

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:37:21 GMT

I just hope that this starts a permanant base on the moon. The sooner we can learn to live out there, the better we can do some things down here.

Lunar lander deal struck

steve smyth — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:51:38 GMT

Jim...I'll do it for $50/hr cash on the barrelhead...one man year's worth and we're off this rock...$100K saves our sorry butts...always wondered how much it would cost.

Lunar lander deal struck

NASA guy — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:08:06 GMT

The actual rate is more like $150 an hour, fully burdened, at the top end.

Lunar lander deal struck

Hank — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 06:56:18 GMT

can't get an answer, sure nasa get many emails shoot they even promise to get back to you. Not, well I'm tired of waiting look for my blog on msn (space not 4 every 1) coming soon. Their are the questions people need to ask themselves
the government and of coarse nasa, we are being mislead. For starter's who truly benefits from this farce called space exploration if you think it's everyday people no I beg to differ, also what about the push for more human like/capable robotics, soon you will be enlightened.

Lunar lander deal struck

kenneth gifford apache junction,az 301s.signal butte rd #127 — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 20:33:30 GMT

why not a space station concept that lands manned landers that keep adding w/ unmanned supply landers?
since it's still unknown how low gravity affects us. it would be necessary before any mars attempts to know before such a long term attempt is made

Lunar lander deal struck

James Bowery — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 19:45:23 GMT

The primary barrier to opening the space frontier is the existence of NASA due to defense-of-turf subsidized by the taxpayer. The main value of this $500,000 is not whatever residual technical expertise may be left from the hundreds of billions of dollars spent subsidizing NASA's defense-of-turf. The main value of this $500,000 is that many in NASA might start to see the commercial sector as a source of revenue rather than Congress -- and therefore be less fearful of commercial successes. Of course, we must be rational about this. How big is NASA's budget from Congress? How big is NASA's budget from commercial space operators? The problem is still gargantuan.