XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics   
   From: invalid@invalid.com   
      
   On 8/25/2017 8:14 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   agree, not one.  12 years   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
      
   all that is in the FAR which is public   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)