XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics   
   From: jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca   
      
   On 2017-08-24 15:15, jacob navia wrote:   
      
   > Great folks really. To treat them as "pork" as some people here are   
   > doing reminds me who the real pigs are.   
      
   The workers are never "pork". They work hard for what they are paid.   
      
   The problem with "pork" is that large contractors such as Boeing get   
   lots of money to get something done.   
      
   And that money may not be efficiently spent compared to a proper   
   "private enterprise" endeavour such as SpaceX who needs to be far more   
   efficient than Boeing to disrupt the market.   
      
   It would have been interesting to see SpaceX bid to run the shuttle   
   program its way and see how much would have been done differently and if   
   many upgrades would have been funded internally because they would   
   result in major operating cost savings.   
      
      
   The math of government funding upgrades doesn't work so well when the   
   contracts are such that the contractor doesn't benefit from lower   
   operating costs. If you're garanteed X% profit margin on costs, it is to   
   your advantage to keep costs as high as possible.   
      
      
   This is why I was curious to see how different the prome missions are   
   from that point of view. They are one off items as opposed to on-going   
   production/maintenance contracts. So the R&D is a far greater part of   
   the project. (aka: science/engineering).   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)