XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics   
   From: fjmccall@gmail.com   
      
   JF Mezei  wrote:   
      
   >On 2017-08-25 00:51, Fred J. McCall wrote:   
   >>   
   >> The only 'upgrade' that was going to fix the Shuttle costs was 'scrap   
   >> and replace'.  Well, unless you can start paying the 'standing army'   
   >> slave wages.   
   >>   
   >   
   >Even NASA had plans to make changes to the shuttle to reduce its costs   
   >significantly. But not allowed/no budget to implement.   
   >   
      
   Cite?   
      
   >   
   >The problem with a "goverment programme" is that politician manage   
   >budgets, and initiative by workers are often blocked by politicians.   
   >   
      
   Hogwash.  I spent 30+ years working on government contracts and never   
   once had a politician managing a budget or blocking initiative.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> Nobody is ever "garanteed[sic] X& profit margin on costs".  Have you   
   >> ever managed anything more complex than your lunch money?   
   >>   
   >   
   >Many government contracts are or were based on cost + (which is   
   >garanteed profit margin).   
   >   
      
   It's clear you don't know shit about government contracts.  Most   
   contracts are one or the other of the half dozen types of Firm Fixed   
   Price contracts.  Almost all the rest are either Cost Plus Fixed Fee   
   (CPFF) or Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF), neither of which works as you   
   describe.  In fact, a contract that works the way you describe is   
   ILLEGAL, so NO government contracts work that way.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> Uh, you know Boeing is a private enterprise, right?   
   >>   
   >   
   >Boeing relies heavily on lobbying to get subsidies for commercial   
   >airplanes, tax breaks, and very profitable military and space contracts.   
   >It isn't a normal "private enterprise".  And for space, it has operated   
   >in a low/no competition market with no incentive to make radical   
   >innovation to lower costs.   
   >   
      
   So they behave like any other large private enterprise, including   
   SpaceX.   
      
   >   
   >With all its engineering talent, how come Boeing couldn't come up with   
   >the equivalent of low cost Falcon 9 rockets decades before the new kid   
   >on the block SpaceX ?   
   >   
   >The answer is simple: lobbying ensures you continue to get contracts   
   >despite having highly inefficient very costly launchers.   
   >   
      
   The answer is simple and you even said it; "low/no competition".  The   
   major cost driver is having to meet all the government regulations   
   intended to protect the government and save it money.  I still recall   
   a hearing where the head of one of the big aerospace firms was asked   
   why they sold rocket boosters to civilians at much lower prices than   
   they charged the government.  The answer from their CEO was, "Exempt   
   me from the FARS today and I will start charging you half as much per   
   rocket tomorrow."   
      
   >   
   >If NASA weren't influenced by lobbying, do you really think they would   
   >have launched its latest TDRS on an expensive Atlas rocket or would they   
   >have gone witgh much cheaper SpaceX Falcon 9?   
   >   
      
   So why do you think all commercial launches do not go on Falcon 9?   
      
   >   
   >Do you think politicians would have allowed NASA to stop getting SRBs   
   >from ATK because it was switching to liquid fly back boosters?   
   >   
      
   They never had a viable design for liquid fly back boosters and no   
   funding to have anyone develop any.   
      
      
   --   
   "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar   
    territory."   
                                         --G. Behn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)