I’ll start by saying that I do not know who has made this lander or that lander. I am assuming that they are made by different companies.

My question is,

Do the different companies share design and results data (through NASA) for the systems used in the landing process? Or is each company redesigning the same wheel? I hope that NASA is getting more than a box with a thruster and instructions inside.

Is the landing system for MSL the summation of all the previous US landers or just the ones made by the same company? I assume the code would follow the same as the hardware?

Which landers?

MPF and MER were JPL. MSL is also JPL. MPL and PHX were Lo-Mart.

I assume you have a point to make here - you normally do - can you save us the bother, show our collective intelligence a little respect and jump TO that point please.

I’m not trying to make a point. (Yet anyways)

I’m just curious if the knowledge gained with each lander is going towards the next. Building the next from what worked well from the last.

I realize that the airbag system for MER just doesn’t scale up for MSL. We just landed Phoenix with shutes and rockets. Is that landing radar and software going to be use (with mods) for MSL? Or are they using an entirely different system and totally fresh software?

It would be nice if they had a standardized radar and software routine that could be used for landers at least of the same size. But I suspect that each lander is a new design. Before you flame me I know Phoenix was made from spare parts from previous missions. But it’s not the same thing.

well.. if it is a NASA designed mission then NASA owns the results. and hence they are shared with the competitor if they win the bid next time around.
That is what the Space Acts Agreements are about. NASA sharing the knowledge it owns thanks to it being the intellectual owner of many projects like these.
actually i think many companies would not be able to compete at all if this were not the case. nobody sells hard earned info to a competitor.

This kinda shines alight on the biggest drawback of NASA getting out of the launcher business as some people seem to want very badly. The designs that NASA pays for and owns are public domain, and any lessons learned can then be picked up by any and all american companies interested in doing business in space. this would no longer be the case if NASA were not to be allowed to design it's own stuff anymore.
the wighting has to be done on weither the launch industry is ready to stand on it's own feet or not in this case.

__________________
Signature? Why?

Not true.
NASA does not have all the rights to the data. ULA, OSC and Spacex data that NASA receives, can not be given out or shared.

Also, there are ITAR restrictions on sharing the info.

Space Act Agreements have nothing to do with NASA sharing data with other contractors. Space Act Agreements can be a conduit for a contractor to share with NASA, but NASA can not share that data with other contractors.

Totally different, since they are totally different landers.

Leaving aside the data generated from the missions, it's fairly typical with government contracts that the government owns the rights to all the design information. It is also fairly common for competitors to be told to get help from each other; this happened with the Apache, which McD/D couldn't get right until they got some help from Sikorsky. I believe it's also happened with rocket engine turbomachinery, and spacecraft toilets.

that NASA is disallowed to give out proprietary information that belongs to their SAA partners is a given. SpaceX owns all of it's own designs for instance. And so i guess does ULA for their launchers. but for NASA owned designs like the space shuttle. and Orion (if they ever end up building it that is) belongs to NASA. as such that design information and performance data is public domain. (ITAR restrictions apply ofc.)
secondly. the experience and know how NASA gathers is one of the key things the SAA's are about. otherwise companies like spaceX would not bother with an SAA at all in order to get help with their LIDS docking radar or their radio link for the dragon capsule.

from the 3CPO homepage on NASA.gov about SAA:

__________________
Signature? Why?

It already is on its feet. EELV's were designed without NASA. It is NASA who hasn't designed a launcher in 30years.

1. No. The Space Act is mostly* one way, information to NASA. It is also another way of putting people on contract.

2. No, that is integration and not getting help or assistance. Integration is required to perform a task. It doesn't matter how the task is contract, Space Act or FAR contract, the work and interchange of information for the task is the same.

3. Wrong. Spacex is doing a Space Act Agreement because NASA is paying them more than 1/4 billion dollars for the information.

The Space Act agreement Spacex has is for NASA to get information on the Falcon and Dragon. This is done by demonstration flight to the ISS. In order for the Dragon to go to the ISS, integration must be done which would include exchanging info on the LIDS docking radar or their radio link for the dragon capsule.

NASA can't use the information exchanged with Spacex to support another contractor. This is in conflict with your statement "if it is a NASA designed mission then NASA owns the results. and hence they are shared with the competitor if they win the bid next time around.That is what the Space Acts Agreements are about."

A. It is not a NASA designed mission and therefore is it is NOT what space Act agreements are about.

Are you working any Space Act Agreements?