NASA plans to build a giant telescope on the far side of the moon

60

Scientists from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration have proposed building a radio telescope directly on the surface of our natural satellite. A giant antenna with a diameter of 1 km can be erected inside one of the craters on the far side of the moon.

The uniqueness of the device lies in the fact that it can be used to observe radio waves that are not accessible for detection from the earth's surface due to interference from the ionosphere. A lunar radio telescope could cover a range from 6 to 30 MHz, which had not previously been used for observations, which would allow scientists to make the latest discoveries in the field of cosmology.


In addition, if the project is successful, a telescope called the Lunar Crater Radio Telescope will become the largest aperture-filled antenna in the entire Solar System. At the same time, the process of its installation can be fully automated. So, as conceived by experts, the wire network inside the crater can be deployed using robotic lunar rovers. Then, in the central part, an overhead receiver will be installed.




It is worth recalling that at the beginning of this month, NASA introduced a new plan for the exploration of the moon, providing for the construction of a residential base on the surface of the celestial body. In turn, President Donald Trump signed decreeallowing Americans to mine on our natural satellite. Against the background of all this, the construction of the aforementioned telescope does not seem to be such an “overly complicated” task.
60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. steelmaker
    steelmaker
    -1
    April 10 2020 15: 46
    First fly to the ISS, and then dream about the Moon!
    1. monman
      monman
      -1
      April 10 2020 17: 24
      First fly to the ISS, and then dream about the moon!

      Rogozin's planned economy - the ISS is already / still flying and 20 years of still dreaming about the Moon.
      For you personally, space news from the USA:

      NASA announced on April 8 that it selected the Masten space systems to deliver a number of payloads to the south pole of the moon at the end of 2022.

      https://spacenews.com/masten-wins-nasa-lunar-lander-award/

      Finally - the first-generation cargo ship Dragon returns to Earth.

      https://spacenews.com/final-first-generation-cargo-dragon-spacecraft-returns-to-earth/

      Dragon went to the station with the CRS-20 cargo mission on March 6, arriving at the station at the beginning of March 9. The spacecraft transported 1 kg of cargo to the station. He returned with him more than 977 kg of cargo, including the results of experiments conducted at the station.
      Future SpaceX cargo missions will use the Crew Dragon version of the spacecraft developed by the company for NASA's commercial crew program. This vehicle will have 20% more volume. The spacecraft will also be able to dock directly with the station, and not be docked by the robotic arm of the station, and land in the Atlantic Ocean, and not in the Pacific Ocean. The new cargo dragon is designed for five flights.

      By the way, steelmaker, remind me of the landing of the Cargo Unions - do they burn out or sit down? Curious to compare.

      The Boeing announced on April 6th that it had decided to complete its second test flight without a CST-100 Starliner crew later this year to confirm the correction of problems encountered during the test flight in December 2019.

      https://spacenews.com/boeing-to-fly-second-starliner-uncrewed-test-flight/

      Well, the best news - NASA agreed to SpaceX launch 4 astronauts in the 2nd quarter of 2020.
      We continue the conversation in the third quarter ....
      1. shadow
        shadow
        -1
        April 10 2020 17: 52
        And how many NASA delivered its astronauts to the ISS? And how many bought RD-180 to deliver all kinds of cargo to the ISS? About their moon scam, I generally keep quiet.
        1. Cyril
          Cyril
          +1
          April 10 2020 22: 18
          And how many NASA delivered its astronauts to the ISS?

          - specifically under the ISS program, the Americans put 280 people into orbit using the Space Shuttle. Roskosmos on the Soyuz program put 183 people into orbit under the ISS program.

          And how many bought RD-180 to deliver all kinds of cargo to the ISS?

          - few, very few. Cargo is delivered to the ISS by three vehicles:
          - Russian "Progress" (carrier rocket "Proton");
          - American Dragon (Falcon-9 booster with American Merlin engines);
          - American Cygnus (Antares carrier rocket, flies on Russian RD-181 engines).

          So, since 2014, Orbital has purchased only 24 RD-181 engines for its Antares missiles. Because the rockets of this company fly to the ISS infrequently. The main delivery of goods is carried out by the Russian Progress and the American Dragon.
          1. shadow
            shadow
            +1
            April 10 2020 22: 25
            Do they have these shuttles now? Or are they flying in the Unions?

            To date, 113 RD-180 engines for the Atlas-5 rocket and 17 RD-181 engines for the Antares rocket have been delivered to the United States, "the agency's source said.

            This information is for 2018. Today 2020.
            So far, they cannot even send an astronaut to the ISS without Unions.
            1. Cyril
              Cyril
              0
              April 11 2020 06: 37
              Do they have these shuttles now? Or are they flying in the Unions?

              - your question was asked like "How many NASA has brought its astronauts to the ISS?" I answered him. Delivered a lot, more than our Soyuz, even though the Space Shuttle hasn't been flying for 9 years.

              This information is for 2018. Today 2020.

              - they bought them several years in advance. So far, there have been no repeated purchases from Orbital ATK. In any case, they will be few. Because Antares almost never fly now.

              So far, they cannot even send an astronaut to the ISS without Unions.

              - they will not be able to do not equal now - "they will not be able in principle." The US has already had breaks in its manned program. For example, between the "Apollo" and "Shuttle" (6 years) - and nothing, at the expense of the "Shuttles" then overtook and overtaken.
    2. Cyril
      Cyril
      0
      April 10 2020 21: 48
      And when they fly, what will you say?
  2. gorenina91
    gorenina91
    -2
    April 10 2020 19: 54
    NASA plans to build a giant telescope on the far side of the moon

    Yes, in fact, there is no particular difficulty ... - All this could have been done "yesterday" ...
    - Yes, and hang out a whole network of lunar satellites ... - everything will be ... in full view ...
    - And ... if there is a need to conduct drilling operations for the study of the lunar soil to a great depth ... - Yes, at least for the construction of underground, i.e. "sublunar" laboratories and factories for assembling the rockets themselves and all kinds of modules on the Moon, then the information can be very detailed and of high quality in transmission and image ...
    - But Russia is not ready for all this ... - Today, the main thing is not to let China go to the nearest planets ... - And the rest - you can somehow ... survive ...
    1. shadow
      shadow
      0
      April 10 2020 22: 32
      NASA cannot even send an astronaut to the ISS, and is purchasing engines from Russia.
      1. Cyril
        Cyril
        0
        April 11 2020 06: 40
        and buys engines from Russia.

        - NASA does not buy engines from Russia. The engines are purchased by Lockheed Martin for their Atlas-5 missiles and Orbital (now part of Northrop-Grumman). In addition to them, NASA uses Boeing's Delta-4s (powered by American engines) and Moscow's Falcones (also powered by their own engines).
        1. shadow
          shadow
          -1
          April 11 2020 15: 58
          https://www.bfm.ru/news/395931

          Honor.
          1. Cyril
            Cyril
            0
            April 12 2020 01: 07
            Oh, Kay, I'm reading.

            NASA Contractor The United Launch Alliance (ULA), which buys the Russian RD-180 rocket engines, has entered into an engine supply agreement with Blue Origin, an American company.

            Read the article further than the headlines.
            1. shadow
              shadow
              0
              April 12 2020 16: 23
              And who is a contractor?

              Contractor: A manufacturer performing certain manufacturing operations on behalf of the original manufacturer (customer).
              1. Cyril
                Cyril
                0
                April 12 2020 16: 39
                That's it, performing production operations. NASA orders the operations, not the means by which these operations will be made. ULA itself determines with what engines its rockets will fly, NASA does not affect it at all.
                1. shadow
                  shadow
                  0
                  April 12 2020 16: 55
                  NASA is a customer. Or do you think that the one who wrote the article does not know who the contractor is? NASA acted as the customer, and the contractor simply performed what was required of him.
                  1. Cyril
                    Cyril
                    0
                    April 12 2020 16: 58
                    Again. NASA is ordering specific work. The agency doesn’t care what engines this job will be done. If the contractor decides what is better with the help of Russian - okay. If with the help of American - okay too The Lockheed Martin company, a member of ULA, chose RD-180s for their Atlas-5s without regard to NASA, the Agency had no influence on this choice.
                    1. shadow
                      shadow
                      0
                      April 12 2020 17: 19
                      NASA ordered, the contractor complied. What is incomprehensible here? Moreover, if Lockheed Martin is included in the contractor, as you wrote. The main company orders, and this is NASA. Therefore, the article is called so.
                      1. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        -1
                        April 12 2020 17: 27
                        Damn, the third time to repeat, or what?) NASA orders the execution of work, and not the means by which this work will be performed.

                        NASA has nothing to do with the purchase of the RD-180. Lockheed Martin selected these engines in 1996 at its own discretion through a competition arranged by it.

                        Therefore, the title of the article is absolutely incorrect.
                      2. shadow
                        shadow
                        0
                        April 12 2020 17: 31
                        And where did you get the idea that NASA is not participating in what it orders? NASA could contact the contractor with the finished program and the contractor completed it. But you, you see, cannot understand this.
                      3. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        0
                        April 14 2020 08: 45
                        And where did you get the idea that NASA is not participating in what it orders? NASA could contact the contractor with the finished program and the contractor completed it.

                        Everything is simple. Because the Atlas-5 rocket carrying the RD-180 was developed by Lockheed Martin in 1996 as part of the EELV program. And this program had nothing to do with NASA - it was carried out under the patronage of the US Air Force.

                        But you, you see, cannot understand this.

                        - your delirium? Of course I can’t.
                      4. shadow
                        shadow
                        +1
                        April 14 2020 13: 29
                        In July 2011, ULA and NASA signed an agreement to develop a manned version of the launch vehicle as part of a commercial flight program.
                        Therefore, NASA is participating in this once the agreement is signed. Moreover, it (NASA) is the customer. And therefore, we can safely say that NASA cannot send astronauts to the ISS.
                      5. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        -1
                        April 14 2020 17: 24
                        In July 2011 years ULA and NASA signed an agreement to develop a manned version of the launch vehicle as part of the commercial flight program.

                        A rocket was created in the 90s)) By military the program.

                        And therefore, we can safely say that NASA cannot send astronauts to the ISS.

                        - cannot yet, yes. This, however, has nothing to do with the RD-180.
                      6. shadow
                        shadow
                        +2
                        April 14 2020 18: 15
                        I said that NASA buys the RD-180, and how it does it: through intermediaries, contractors, or something else, it doesn’t matter. Moreover, the contractor is subordinate to the customer.
                      7. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        -2
                        April 14 2020 19: 40
                        I said NASA buys RD-180

                        - so you said wrong)) NASA does not buy anything. Atlases 5 began flying long before NASA signed a contract with Lockheed Martin

                        When will you stop dumb?)
                      8. shadow
                        shadow
                        0
                        April 14 2020 19: 54
                        Oh Yo. I will explain with an example. I am a customer, you are a contractor. We have a contract. And you tell me that I need, no matter why, certain engines that I bought before the contract. I say: good. Under this, funds are allocated from the customer. Question: Who buys engines? That's clearer?
                      9. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        0
                        April 14 2020 20: 25
                        Oh Yo. I will explain with an example.

                        With examples you have trouble laughing

                        Here is a more correct analogy for you:

                        I dig up the gardens with a shovel, the shaft of which I bought about seller A, the canvas - from seller B and I assembled it myself.

                        You come to me with an order - they say, dig me a garden. I say, ok, I’ll only use my shovel. You say okay.

                        Now the question is: did you buy the shaft for my shovel from seller A, and the blade from seller B?

                        So NASA also pays only for the execution of the service (launching the load into space). The equipment used for this (in particular, the engines) is purchased by the operator of these services (Lockheed Martin).
                      10. shadow
                        shadow
                        0
                        April 14 2020 20: 26
                        That's just NASA, how the customer allocates money. And whoever pays, he buys.
                      11. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        0
                        April 14 2020 20: 29
                        That's just NASA, how the customer allocates money.

                        True, allocates money. To perform the service.

                        And whoever pays, he buys.

                        NASA pays for a service - buys a service. Lockheed pays for engines, buys engines.

                        In my example, did you buy me a shafts and shovel blade?)
                      12. shadow
                        shadow
                        +1
                        April 14 2020 20: 32
                        NASA, while paying for the service, also pays for the costs of this service. And even more so, first money is allocated, and then chairs. And since NASA allocates money, it buys. Or Lochid buys engines for his money? Like a gift like that?
                      13. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        0
                        April 14 2020 21: 08
                        NASA, while paying for the service, also pays for the costs of this service.

                        When you pay for a laptop - does this mean that you pay an African worker at the nickel mine that makes up your laptop’s chips?

                        Or Lochid buys engines for his money?

                        Exactly. Lockheed (more precisely, ULA, which includes Lockheed) concludes a separate contract with NPO Energomash for the purchase of a specific batch of RD-180. NASA has nothing to do with this contract. Lockheed rockets made from these engines can be sold to any customer, whether NASA, the US Air Force or commercial customers.
                      14. shadow
                        shadow
                        +2
                        April 14 2020 21: 18
                        Of course, you pay the worker as well. the final price also includes labor costs, otherwise companies would simply go broke. Do you rent a car, do you pay for gasoline and depreciation, or do you think that the driver should pay from your pocket? Oh well.
                      15. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        0
                        April 14 2020 21: 29
                        Of course, you pay the worker as well. the final price also includes labor costs, otherwise companies would simply go broke.

                        No, it’s not you who pays the worker. The worker is paid by his employer. This employer is paid by the buyer of nickel (for example, a company producing microchips), this manufacturer is paid by the computer builder, and you pay this collector.

                        The fact that the price expended on the extraction of raw materials for the manufacture of its components is included in the final cost of the product, does not make you a person who pays for the labor of the worker who extracted this raw material.
                      16. shadow
                        shadow
                        +2
                        April 14 2020 21: 36
                        But do you sell the product? And the one who sells the product and is considered the owner of this product. Accordingly, NASA is the master of this rocket and even the engine. It pays money. So it buys. So everything is correctly written in the article. Lockheed does not need these flights at all, but if someone is willing to pay for them, including the purchase of engines, then please. Lockheed was paid for a rocket, for engines and for kerosene. And whoever pays the property. And NASA pays. It is very difficult to understand, to see.
                      17. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        0
                        April 14 2020 21: 52
                        Accordingly, NASA is the master of this rocket and even the engine.

                        No. The rocket is owned by Lockheed Martin. The rocket does not become the property of NASA. NASA only orders the service.
                        Just like you, when ordering me to dig a garden, do not become the master of my shovel.

                        Lockheed does not need these flights at all, but if someone is willing to pay for them, including the purchase of engines, then please.

                        How is it that Lockheed does not need these flights if it is his source of income?
                      18. shadow
                        shadow
                        +2
                        April 14 2020 22: 10
                        I wrote like this:

                        Lockheed does not need these flights at all, but if someone is willing to pay for them, including the purchase of engines, then please.

                        Therefore, yours is this:

                        How is it that Lockheed does not need these flights if it is his source of income?

                        - it doesn’t roll here. Read carefully, otherwise it turns out, we read, but did not realize.
                        If you buy a car in the cabin, then the car belongs to you or the salon? And if you broke the rules on this machine, is the salon also to blame?
                        And yes, initially you have neither a shovel, nor a shaft, because you have not been allocated money for this. You will get them only after they have allocated funds and only then will you dig. And the customer will take the blade himself, because it was he who allocated money for her and this is his thing. And in this case, it doesn’t work that I had a shovel with a shaft originally, because rockets and engines cost not 5 kopecks. And I didn’t see something, that Lockheed was engaged in charity in terms of flying into space, and even more so was spending fabulous money on a product, which then, perhaps, was not in demand.
                      19. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        0
                        April 14 2020 22: 23
                        Read carefully, but it turns out read, not realized.

                        - because you write nonsense.
                        Lockheed, as a service provider, needs a demand for this service. It is not important for him (or not fundamentally important) only who will use these services. In other words, Lockheed needs clients as such, but does not need NASA as a client.
                        If Lockheed did not need the launches themselves (that is, orders for them), he simply would not do it.

                        If you buy a car in the cabin, then the car belongs to you or the salon? And if you broke the rules on this machine, is the salon also to blame?

                        Of course not. After all, after buying a car, it passes from the ownership of the salon to your property.
                        But the Atlas rockets will not be transferred to NASA. Because NASA only orders a service, not a tool to perform that service.

                        And yes, initially you have neither a shovel, nor a shaft, because you have not been allocated money for this. You will get them only after they have allocated funds and only then will you dig.

                        You're dumb again. Lockheed doesn't build its rockets after NASA paid it money. The company makes its own missiles, and then breaks the existing ones under contracts. This is why ULA has a branch dedicated to advancement its rockets in the market.

                        which then, perhaps, was not in demand.

                        That's just it in demand.
                      20. shadow
                        shadow
                        +1
                        April 14 2020 22: 38
                        Do not confuse the service with a shaft and a shovel, which are not bought for your money. Your service is digging, and it’s not you who pays the shovel with the shaft, which means. she is not yours.
                        About the delirium. Only you are nonsense, because the meaning of the phrase was such that if someone wants to pay for a space flight, then please. But you, you see, cannot understand what has been read. Yes, when contracts are created, funds can be allocated right away, maybe in the process, or maybe after the end of the creation of the product (in this case) for which the customer pays. Without a contract, no one will do anything, which is why they are created so that then there is no loss. And, as I said about the car and car dealership, the product becomes the property of the customer, because he paid money for it.
                      21. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        0
                        April 14 2020 23: 35
                        Do not confuse the service with a shaft and a shovel, which are not bought for your money. Your service is digging, and it’s not you who is paying for the shovel with the shaft, which means it is not yours.

                        In my example, there was not a word that you bought me a shovel. In my example, it was said that by the time you came to me with the order, I already had this shovel. The fact that you distort my analogy, customizing it for yourself is your problem.

                        Again. NASA pays for the service itself, not the rocket, for one simple reason - the NASA rocket itself is not needed in its property. And it is not needed for one simple reason - because NASA itself does not carry out launches. Launches are carried out precisely by rocket manufacturers. In our case, ULA.

                        And as I said about the car and car dealership, the product becomes the property of the customer, because he paid money for it

                        Your example with a car and a car dealership is not correct for one simple reason. Going to a car dealership, the buyer acquires the car, and not the ride service on it. And having acquired it in the property, he can either ride it, or just leave it in the garage, or even break it.

                        And if a person needs to get exactly once every 1 years from point A to point B (or carry goods), he doesn’t buy a car for this - he goes in a taxi, uses car sharing or the services of a transport company. In this case, the vehicle that he uses is not transferred to his property.

                        NASA also needs to have its device (a spaceship or satellite) put into orbit. To do this, she does not need to buy a rocket - she needs to buy the very service of launching into orbit from the launch operator, which is also the manufacturer of this rocket.

                        About the consumables. Well, let’s take your logic and calculate that the rocket (and engines) are consumables. But this does not make the launch customer on this rocket the owner of these consumables.

                        I will explain by analogy. Suppose I’m a doctor. You ordered me to give you an injection from stupidity. At the same time, you yourself did not provide me with either a syringe or medicine (supplies), leaving you to choose what kind of syringe it is and what kind of medicine it is. I myself go, I buy with my money a disposable syringe and an ampoule with medicine. After that I give you an injection, the price of which, of course, includes the cost of these supplies.

                        Does this make you the owner of this syringe and medicine? No, it doesn’t. You just paid for the service. And in case my injection made you even dumber - I will answer. All legal responsibility for them is on me, because I am the owner.

                        A completely different moment, if ordering an injection from me, you yourself have chosen and bought a syringe and medicine and said that now I have to do my work precisely with their use. Then - yes, you are the owner of these supplies. And if they made you dumber - all responsibility is on you.
                      22. shadow
                        shadow
                        +2
                        April 15 2020 00: 48
                        Yes, it makes the owner of the syringe and medicine. You will give them to me - both a syringe and a medicine, i.e. buy for your money, and I will pay you only for the injection? No, you will take money from me for them, and therefore, this is mine. And your service consists in an injection and nothing more. And I can refuse your service. Hard to understand?
                        About the shovel. An example, or rather, the initial conditions are not correct, because initially, no one without a contract will not do anything, much less buy. First money, then chairs. Consequently, the shaft should not initially be, because you buy it, even if you initially have the shovel itself, or rather, you will make it with the money that the customer will give you (we customize the example for engines). Without a customer and a contract, you will not spend your money buying a shaft and creating a shovel, as You do not know whether the order will be. And the service is digging, which the customer also pays for you, you just wouldn’t dig like that, because you don’t need to plow this field. This is necessary for the customer. For this he also pays.
                        As a little explain. Perhaps you yourself need to do an injection from stupidity.

                        Quote: Cyril
                        And if a person needs to get exactly once every 1 years from point A to point B (or carry goods), he doesn’t buy a car for this - he goes in a taxi, uses car sharing or the services of a transport company. In this case, the vehicle that he uses is not transferred to his property. .

                        That's it, he uses the service, in this case - a simple transportation, which does not include the purchase of the engine and the entire machine, because she remains with the driver, this is by the way about what a disposable product is and what is not. The rocket and engine after use at Lockheed do not remain. Is that clear too? And on your example.

                        NASA’s Cyril, however, requires its device (a spacecraft or satellite) to be put into orbit. To do this, she does not need to buy a rocket - she needs to buy the very service of launching into orbit from the launch operator, which is also the manufacturer of this rocket.

                        According to your logic, NASA only needs to pay for the service, and Lockheed itself will pay for the cost of the rocket and engine. Making an analogy with a syringe and medicine, it turns out that Lockheed gives NASA for free both the rocket and the engines for it.
                        I already wrote about charity and you have confirmed my words with your example. But Lockheed is not a charitable organization.
                        About other customers.
                        I wrote there above, I’ll write again. And if there are no other customers, then what? Money invested, but no return, who works this way? You?
                        You know, even an injection from dullness and stupidity together will not save you.
                      23. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        0
                        April 15 2020 02: 11
                        Yes, it makes the owner of the syringe and medicine. You will give them to me - both a syringe and a medicine, i.e. buy for your money, and I will pay you only for the injection? No, you will take money from me for them, and therefore, this is mine. And your service consists in an injection and nothing more. And I can refuse your service. Hard to understand?

                        No, I won't. I use them for an injection - they are disposable. Although, if you need a used disposable syringe and an empty ampoule, then I can transfer them to you "property". Well, what if you have, in addition to stupidity, also pathological hoarding. laughing

                        those. buy for your money, and I will pay you only for the injection?

                        Exactly. The cost of this injection will include the cost of consumables, but if I purchase them myself, for my money, then they do not become your property.

                        And I can refuse your service.

                        But then you won’t get a syringe with medicine either, because they were bought not with your money and not with you. Hard to understand?)

                        About the shovel. An example, or rather, the initial conditions are not correct, because initially, no one without a contract will not do anything, much less buy.

                        The conditions are extremely correct. Where in my example did I say that I will buy my shovel precisely because of your contract? I wrote that I was digging the earth using such and such a shovel. You are not my only and not my first customer, I already had this shovel before you contacted me with the order.
                        Likewise, NASA turned to Lockheed Martin after it had designed and manufactured the Atlas 5 rocket.

                        Without a customer and a contract, you will not spend your money buying a shaft and creating a shovel, as You do not know whether the order will be.

                        Where did you get it? Actually, before opening your own business (and digging gardens, like launching rockets, is a business), a normal entrepreneur studies the market. Not familiar with the term "potential demand"? Well, now you should know. I don't need to know exactly what it is you come to me with an order - it is enough for me to know that there are generally people who need to dig a garden. Upon learning this, I invest own money into a shovel, and only then I go out with it to the market for services for digging up gardens and looking for specific customers. Or they find me themselves (for example, thanks to an ad I posted).

                        Do you know the concept of "initial capital"? This is the money that an entrepreneur initially invests in his business (equipment, advertising, etc.) to get started. When he doesn't have any clients or contracts yet. In my example, the initial capital is money invested in a shovel. My money, which makes the shovel my property.

                        That's it, he uses the service, in this case - a simple transportation, which does not include the purchase of the engine and the entire machine, because she remains with the driver, this is by the way about what a disposable product is and what is not.

                        Right. He needs transportation, he pays only for transportation. And the car with the engine remains the property of the driver. Similarly, NASA does not need the rocket itself - it only needs a delivery service.

                        The rocket and engine after use at Lockheed do not remain.

                        So she does not stay with NASA)) She is disposable.
                        But the reusable Mask rockets, on which he launches cargo on the ISS for NASA, remain in the ownership of Mask and he then uses them to launch satellites for other clients. Moreover, he does not make any NASA deductions from these launches. Because it his rocketand NASA only orders launch services.

                        According to your logic, NASA only needs to pay for the service, and Lockheed itself will pay for the cost of the rocket and engine.

                        Right. Lockheed pays for the rocket and the purchase of the engine out of pocket. And then it compensates for these costs at the expense of the price that it sets for its customers to launch with this rocket.

                        Making an analogy with a syringe and medicine, it turns out that Lockheed gives NASA for free both the rocket and the engines for it.

                        No, it does not give)) It includes the cost of the rocket in the cost of the service. But that does not make NASA a buyer of this rocket - only a buyer of a service that will offset Lockheed's expenses on the rocket.

                        I wrote there above, I’ll write again. And if there are no other customers, then what? Money invested, but no return, who works this way?

                        So I will answer again - before offering my services (or goods), the entrepreneur first analyzes the market and studies the potential demand.
                      24. shadow
                        shadow
                        +1
                        April 15 2020 03: 32
                        You can immediately see that you are an amateur, and even a deceitful one. Who will pay for a disposable syringe and an empty capsule? You probably always do that. Well, that is your right. Moreover, in the example that you cited, not a single word is said about any empty ampoules and used syringes.
                        You wrote that does not give, i.e. confirmed my words, which completely refute your example of a machine and the fact that Lockheed is not a charity, as I wrote.
                        Next.
                        It’s immediately obvious that you have never before dealt with contracts and contracts, where it is always clearly stated what is a service, what is a product, what customer’s money is spent on, this is fully described. Or do you think NASA has lawyers?
                        Once again: whoever pays the money is the thing. But you, you see, cannot realize this.
                        About the service. Everywhere it says that NASA launched a rocket, well, not Lockheed. Again you're lying. So, NASA itself launches these rockets, rather than buying services.

                        https://lenta.ru/news/2020/02/10/antares/

                        And if there is no service that you say so, then the rocket is the property of NASA. Moreover, Lockheed is a NASA contractor.
                        And you can see that you have never dealt with expensive piece goods. Such orders, and the rocket is a very expensive and piece goods, are paid by the client in full.
                        Elon Musk.
                        That's just NASA to start paying for the service, because the part (product) is left with the owner. Just my analysis of your example with a machine, it shows very well. But you can’t understand this either.
                        But NASA pays for those products that are disposable: i.e. products that can no longer be used, and therefore, they become the owner of the customer.
                        And what's the difference if NASA has a rocket or not. If NASA rents a rocket, then the rocket should be transferred to Lockheed after use. But this does not happen.

                        Lease - a form of property agreement in which property is transferred into temporary possession and use (or only for temporary use).

                        And if it is planned that the product will be destroyed, then the entire product is redeemed by the customer. Q.E.D.
                      25. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        0
                        April 15 2020 06: 18
                        Who will pay for a disposable syringe and an empty capsule?

                        It was sarcasm, if you did not understand) However, where do you go)

                        You wrote that does not give, i.e. confirmed my words, which completely refute your example of a machine and the fact that Lockheed is not a charity, as I wrote.

                        No, he does not give)) In the same way as a taxi driver (car-sharing or transport company) does not give his car. My car example is exactly the same as the situation with Lockheed and NASA.

                        About the service. Everywhere it says that NASA launched a rocket, well, not Lockheed. Again you're lying. So, NASA itself launches these rockets, rather than buying services.

                        And one should read not "everywhere", but primary sources. Namely, the site of ULA itself. In the Launch Services section, we read:

                        For more than a decade ULA has served as the premier launch provider for US government and commercial customers. Our unrivaled capability and record of mission success have made ULA the launch provider of choice for critical and high-value space assets. We bring unmatched expertise to the challenges of rocket science.

                        And in the newspapers they write "NASA launched" just for simplicity. Journalists are not engineers or lawyers; they do not go into such a jungle.
                        Once again, for the gifted - NASA is the administrative and supervisory body .. It does not deal with the manufacture or launch of missiles. Manufacturers and operators are involved in this (most often the same companies).
                        And in order to confirm my point with facts (and not speculations like you), I will cite two NASA programs as an example:

                        Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) - Commercial Orbital Transportation Services the development of the launch vehicle and the spacecraft for the ISS by private companies.

                        Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) (Commercial supply services) - program for launching previously developed (under the COTS program) rockets and spacecraft with cargo for the ISS.

                        Now tell me, if NASA "launches" rockets by itself, then why did it enter into contracts with SpaceX and the Orbital Science Corporation under the second program to carry out launches of the rockets they developed to the ISS? Why did you pay for a service that you could perform yourself, since "it launches itself"?

                        We read the following news on the official website of NASA -

                        https://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/dec/HQ_C08-069_ISS_Resupply.html

                        I quote:

                        "NASA has awarded two contracts - one to Orbital Sciences Corp. of Dulles, Va., and one to Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, Calif. - for commercial cargo resupply services to the International Space Station. At the time of award, NASA has ordered eight flights valued at about $ 1.9 billion from Orbital and 12 flights valued at about $ 1.6 billion from SpaceX.

                        The each contracts call for the delivered of a minimum of 20 metric tons of upmass cargo to the space station. The contracts 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.

                        Specially highlighted keywords, otherwise you're blind. They washed in space, then flies ...

                        By the way, the Antares rocket and the Cygnus spacecraft (about which it was written in your news from Lenta) were developed by Orbital Sciences Corp as part of the first program (COTS) and were launched by the same company (not NASA) on the ISS as part of the second CRS program.

                        NASA, by the way, as a customer and as a controlling (but not carrying out) launching authority, can interrupt the launching if it sees fit. But the launch itself was not carried out by her, but by the manufacturer and operator of the Orbital Sciences Corp. rocket.

                        That's just NASA for the launch pays for the service, because the part (product) is left with the owner. Just my analysis of your example with a machine, it shows very well. But you can’t understand this either.

                        No. Falcon-9 is the property of SpaceX, because it is so stipulated in the contract for the COST program, under which this rocket was developed.

                        But NASA pays for those products that are disposable: i.e. products that can no longer be used, and therefore, they become the owner of the customer.

                        NASA is not paying for the rocket. and for the service - read the above quote from the news on the NASA website.

                        And what's the difference if NASA has a rocket or not. If NASA rents a rocket, then the rocket should be transferred to Lockheed after use.

                        That's just NASA does not rent a rocket. Read your own definition of rent:

                        Rent - a form of property agreement in which property is transferred in temporary possession and use (or only for temporary use).

                        NASA would rent a rocket if it launched on it (i.e. used a rocket) But the launch (as we see from information from the ULA website or contracts with SpaceX and Orbital Science Corp) is carried out from beginning to end by the rocket manufacturers themselves. NASA only orders the service and monitors its implementation by the executors, but does not launch it itself.

                        And since NASA does not rent disposable rockets, it does not redeem them after use. Therefore, they do not become her property after use.
                      26. shadow
                        shadow
                        0
                        April 15 2020 10: 53
                        Yes, I already realized that you are an amateur who is not able to understand why NASA concludes contracts. Contracts are concluded so that in case of fraud, it is possible to sue losses, costs, etc. through the court. But you cannot understand it.
                      27. shadow
                        shadow
                        +1
                        April 14 2020 23: 21
                        Yes, another such interesting thing. If Lockheed makes 2 rockets without a contract, on his own initiative to purchase engines from Russia, and at that time American companies create their own rockets and NASA signs a contract with them, the question arises: to whom Lockheed will sell these rockets? Therefore, contracts are concluded for years to come.
                        This is about the demand.
                      28. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        0
                        April 14 2020 23: 53
                        The question arises: to whom Lockheed will sell these missiles?

                        To other clients - the same military or private companies. Atlas-5 rockets, although rare, are used to launch a commercial load into orbit.

                        By the way, it was to save their orders that ULA, with the help of its lobby in the Pentagon, tried to prevent SpaceX from entering the military launch market. Those managed to gain access to the military only through the courts.

                        Therefore, contracts are concluded for years to come.

                        Contracts are concluded for years to come for another reason - because the production of a load (spacecraft) requires a lot of time. However, the contract does not imply the purchase of a launch vehicle by the customer for the same reason. During the manufacture of satellites (and some of them are prepared for 10 years each), anything can happen to the performer (launch operator). If it goes bankrupt, a pre-purchased rocket will hang dead weight on the customer, since no one will launch it.
                      29. shadow
                        shadow
                        +1
                        April 14 2020 21: 40
                        It is the customer who pays for the entire chain from the extraction of raw materials to the final product.
                      30. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        0
                        April 14 2020 21: 54
                        No, the customer pays only for the goods that he bought, he does not pay to those who participated through the stump deck at the beginning of the production chain.

                        That is why, if a laptop breaks down due to (say) low-quality nickel, you can only make complaints to the one who sold it to you, and not to the worker who mined nickel for its manufacture.
                      31. shadow
                        shadow
                        +2
                        April 14 2020 22: 55
                        The customer pays for everything, so an estimate is created.

                        Estimates - calculation (plan) of future expenses for the implementation of any activity. There are estimates to finance the activities of any enterprise, institution, to perform any work ...
                      32. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        -1
                        April 15 2020 02: 20
                        The customer pays for everything, so an estimate is created.

                        That does not make the customer the owner of the equipment and tools that the contractor used. laughing
                      33. shadow
                        shadow
                        0
                        April 14 2020 20: 37
                        Your example is not correct. Engines are consumables, and in your example, the shaft is not consumables.
                      34. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        0
                        April 14 2020 21: 19
                        Your example is not correct. Engines are consumables, and in your example, the shaft is not consumables.

                        No. Engines are not consumables. Rocket consumables are fuel and oxidizer. And the engine (more precisely, the entire rocket in the case of Atlas-5) is a one-time product.
                      35. shadow
                        shadow
                        +2
                        April 14 2020 21: 24
                        A disposable product is also a consumable item, as it is used once. Even a rocket is a consumable.
                      36. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        0
                        April 14 2020 21: 56
                        this is also a consumable item, as it is used once

                        Consumable is not what was used once, but what is consumed during the operation of a product.

                        Say, the cartridge in the printer does not end right after you print one sheet, but it is a consumable.
                      37. shadow
                        shadow
                        +1
                        April 14 2020 21: 28
                        Can the engine be reused after the launch of the rocket? If not, then this is a consumable.
                      38. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        0
                        April 14 2020 21: 59
                        Can the engine be reused after the launch of the rocket? If not, then this is a consumable.

                        RD-180 is designed for reusable use. But the design of the rocket implies its one-time use. The engine is lost along with it.

                        Although I don’t understand at all, where is the consumable item or not the consumable item. If you ordered from me just digging up the garden, then this is purely my problem, what materials I use for this. And I pay them, not you.
                      39. shadow
                        shadow
                        +1
                        April 14 2020 22: 21
                        It doesn’t matter how much it is designed for, it’s important how many times it is used.
                      40. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        -1
                        April 14 2020 22: 25
                        It doesn’t matter how much it is designed for, it’s important how many times it is used.

                        For that matter, generally on the drum, how much it is used. It does not affect anything.
                      41. shadow
                        shadow
                        +1
                        April 14 2020 22: 47
                        In fact, it affects, so they are called disposable.
                      42. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        -1
                        April 14 2020 23: 44
                        In fact, it affects, so they are called disposable.

                        Disposability does not affect the ownership of this equipment.
      2. Arkharov
        Arkharov
        -2
        April 11 2020 15: 03
        shadow Looped?
  3. The comment was deleted.