Comments on: Assessing the space industrial base http://www.spacepolitics.com/2006/04/05/assessing-the-space-industrial-base/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=assessing-the-space-industrial-base Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway... Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38 By: Sam Dinkin http://www.spacepolitics.com/2006/04/05/assessing-the-space-industrial-base/#comment-7567 Thu, 06 Apr 2006 04:11:30 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=922#comment-7567 I like that “regardless of free market dynamics”. Can I have that deal?

]]> By: Monte Davis http://www.spacepolitics.com/2006/04/05/assessing-the-space-industrial-base/#comment-7566 Wed, 05 Apr 2006 20:49:23 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=922#comment-7566 Free-market dynamics? From a recent Aviation Week retrospective on the development of the B-2:

“‘We kept a top-10 list of [B-2 concerns] on the briefing-room wall,’ [Northrop VP Alfred] Myers recalls. ‘We were seven years into the program before cost made that list.'”

]]> By: Brent http://www.spacepolitics.com/2006/04/05/assessing-the-space-industrial-base/#comment-7565 Wed, 05 Apr 2006 17:20:14 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=922#comment-7565 For the record, I am all in favor of combing the design for flaws as much as possible for man-rated vehicles. My point was intended for small spacelift, like the Falcon 1. I’m sure alot of students helped build the falconsat satellite. I doubt they’re losing a whole lot of sleep about losing it.

]]> By: Brent http://www.spacepolitics.com/2006/04/05/assessing-the-space-industrial-base/#comment-7564 Wed, 05 Apr 2006 17:15:40 +0000 http://www.districtofbaseball.com/spacepolitics/?p=922#comment-7564 The phrase “regardless of free market dynamics” is a scary one indeed. “National security” needs as an excuse to subsidize Big Aerospace has probably done far more to hurt the American space effort than help it. I’m fairly certain it has caused Boeing and Lockheed Martin to do business as usual operations for far too long. This “regardless of free market dynamics” philosophy is the reason we have Maj Gen Hamel defending the Unholy Launch Alliance in the current Space News, and NASA keeping CEV contracts close to the chest.

Hundreds of millions for spacelift to Boeing and Lockheed per shot. The same amount of money channeled to the startup space companies could yield real results. SpaceX lost a vehicle, that’s true. One thing that Mr Day and Mr Hill didn’t really address in their fine articles, however, was that many rockets that worked on their first flight (shuttle, Saturn V, etc..) were also staffed by an army of engineers that had 10x or more the people combing every facet of the design. Although it might make a higher success rate, losing a rocket or two to work out the bugs will likely be far more cost effective than over-engineering the vehicle.

Why won’t the military embrace the free market rather than fight it at every turn? AFRL and DARPA can only do so much..

]]>