Why is this labeled as the first time a US mission returns an asteroid sample?

I looked around a bit and it looks like nobody has done that yet. Was there a previous one I couldn't find?

The headline kind of implies that someone else did it first but I can't find anything to support that.

> At the briefing, O said that how ESA spent the money was more important that getting more funding, citing the development of launch services by SpaceX that, with support from NASA through commercial partnerships, eroded Europe’s once-dominant position in the global launch market.

> “There is not a revolution in the amount of money that is spent. The big game-changer is the emergence of the NewSpace sector,” he said. “If we go on with the same procurement policies, if we go on with the same constraints that we have today, if we go on with monopolies, if we go with hampering the emergence of NewSpace actors, we won’t make it no matter what the budget is.”

> He reiterated that point later in the briefing. “The overall efficiency of the euros that are spent today is very poor,” he said.

Cedric O is very critical of geo-return, arguing that it is wasteful, and undermines competition. Under geo-return spending choices are motivated more by politics, not by funding competitive companies and competitive designs. With geo-return ESA can't implement a competitive fixed price competition like CRS or Commercial Crew. O argues ESA needs structural reform, not more funds.

> At the briefing, though, he (The ESA Director General) said he was not considering doing away with geo-return altogether, arguing it was key to the increased funding ESA won at its latest ministerial meeting, called CM22, last November. “Geo-return is not a poison,” he said. “It’s serving us extremely well. We wouldn’t have gotten 17 billion at CM22 without geo-return.”

So the ESA Director General has made clear he isn't interested in reforming geo-return. That means any potential human spaceflight program is going to award the contracts based on politics, not based on the merits of the design or the company. This reaction from the Director General reminds me of empire building. He isn't interested in reform, he's interested in raising more funds from European countries, to increase the size of his empire.

Me in 2010: "Boeing and SpaceX both unveiled their capsules. Good luck SpaceX, Boeing's going to nail crewed flight with all their experience."

Then 2014 hits, SpaceX announces Dragon 2 for crew. Boeing, where are you? Still working on it I hope.

Then 2019 SpaceX successfully tests a Crew Dragon trip to the ISS, while Boeing fails a test flight. WTF is going on?

Then 2020 SpaceX delivers crew to the ISS, and we still have no clue when Starliner will fly.

How the great have fallen.

[removed]

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules| | |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)| |SLS|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |ULA|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)|

|Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |Starliner|Boeing commercial crew capsule CST-100|

^(3 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 15 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8721 for this sub, first seen 24th Mar 2023, 17:26]) ^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])

Excerpt from the linked content^1 by Rani Gran:

>NASA's OSIRIS-REx spacecraft is cruising back to Earth with a sample it collected from the rocky surface of asteroid Bennu.

>When its sample capsule parachutes down into the Utah desert on Sept. 24, OSIRIS-REx will become the United States’ first-ever mission to return an asteroid sample to Earth.

>After seven years in space, including a nail-biting touchdown on Bennu to gather dust and rocks, this intrepid mission is about to face one of its biggest challenges yet: deliver the asteroid sample to Earth while protecting it from heat, vibrations, and earthly contaminants.

>“Once the sample capsule touches down, our team will be racing against the clock to recover it and get it to the safety of a temporary clean room,” said Mike Moreau, deputy project manager at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

>So, over the next six months, the OSIRIS-REx team will practice and refine the procedures required to recover the sample in Utah and transport it to a new lab built for the material at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston.

>There, scientists will unpack the sample, distribute up to a quarter of it to the OSIRIS-REx science team around the world for analysis, and curate the rest for other scientists to study, now and in future generations.

^1 NASA prepares for historic asteroid sample delivery on Sept. 24, Rani Gran for NASA, 24 Mar. 2023, https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2023/nasa-prepares-for-osiris-rex-historic-asteroid-sample-delivery-sept-24-2023

In theory there will be commercial stations at some point. I assume tourists will continue going with SpaceX due to cost and track record but NASA will still buy Starliners because they would like to keep both options. Wouldn't surprise me if Boeing threatens to axe the program after the initial contract if NASA doesn't start paying them just to maintain it

My mind agrees, but my back says it's a big deal.

[removed]

[removed]

I was immediately thinking along the same lines. Like, "Haven't we already figured that one out?" Well, evidently not. lol

> That's assembly. Rostov007 was talking about testing.

Oh cut the crap. Cameras are constantly filming the Starship tests and do you have any idea how many cameras are pointed at their McGregor test site?

> Besides, SpaceX doesn't have a sliver of the government contracts that Boeing does

SpaceX actually has about the same number of government launch contracts as Boeing does (assuming you include ULA) so I'm not sure what your point is here.

> and certainly less than a sliver of its history.

That's true. SpaceX doesn't have nearly as many failures in their history as Boeing does :)

Seriously though, wtf does this have to do with anything?

> How much of SpaceX are miltary contracts? Boeing does a huge amount.

SpaceX has more military launch contracts that Boeing does since Boeing has precisely zero so what's your point?

> Anyway, enough of this. Unsubscribing. There's a weird kneejerk positive reaction to SpaceX and similarly weird kneejerk negative reaction to other companies (and NASA) that I'm not willing to engage right now.

Oh please. Boeing has been one failure after another since the MD merger. SLS is ludicrously over-budget. 787 deliveries are suspended again. The 737 Max fiasco. Starliner is a joke.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to keep defending a company that keeps failing, but that's something you need to figure out for yourself.

And if you want to unsubscribe, the button is over on the right :)

First, this article is an opinion piece on the matter. Second, there has been zero evidence of it being a political decision. Both the DOD and GAO have done independent reviews of the process used to determine where the command should go, and found that they followed the rules and there was no unfair treatment. He didn't choose Huntsville, Huntsville was the top candidate based off all of the selection criteria. Colorado wasn't even second if I remember right.

The only thing trump did was say stupid things, like usual, that had no bearing on the decision. The only reason Biden might halt the move is seemingly because of now being a crucial time in monitoring space warfare and not wanting any interruptions. It's also not a guarantee biden will make this decision. It's just a possibility.

The University of Arizona’s Steward Observatory does a lot of research things like modeling galactic collisions which is limited by both human’s understanding of physics and the limits of computing. Advancements from the research comes in modeling techniques, computing, and physics. Sounds like this kind of stuff is right up your alley

That's assembly. Rostov007 was talking about testing. Besides, SpaceX doesn't have a sliver of the government contracts that Boeing does, and certainly less than a sliver of its history. How much of SpaceX are miltary contracts? Boeing does a huge amount.

Anyway, enough of this. Unsubscribing. There's a weird kneejerk positive reaction to SpaceX and similarly weird kneejerk negative reaction to other companies (and NASA) that I'm not willing to engage right now.

Unsubscribing.

[removed]

ask those dozen or so apollo program engineers still around.

[removed]

I don't think you fully grasp what can happen when you're lax with things. And the only way to not be lax with things is to make rules that apply broadly.

For fun here's a gif of a timelapse of stars orbiting Sagittarius A*.

Ah looks like I misread it. Totally agree then.

Fixed price does. That wasn't obvious from what i wrote?

For absolutely innovative scientific research fixed price leads nowhere. Typical example is fusion power. But this rocket? Oversimplifying: it's just bigger.

The cost plus promotes efficiency or the fixed price?

Fixed price should be the way going forward on relatively low risk endeavors. I’ve worked contracts that were really pushing the envelope and the company management didn’t want to bid because they were concerned that they would lose money on the contract.

Oh, not cost plus? Well, those are not my taxes but still that setup promotes efficiency. While this is literally rocket science it is rather standard rocket science, so i don't see many reasons for unlimited funding.

Edit: fixed price is in my opinion better for this rocket. It's mostly known risks and just optimizing delivery.

Meanwhile, SpaceX started building Starship in a bunch of tents next to a road where lots of people stop to take photographs, and over which people fly all the time to take photographs.