“But they were not designed to benefit Orbital and SpaceX specifically, or even their particular sector of the economy. But if you’re sympathetic to the “government is a racket” point of view, then yes, corruption in government contracting is inevitable.”

Having lived in the “belly of the beast” so to speak (DOD contractors), I guess I have a different perspective.

When something is well defined, then it’s harder for “corruption” to occur. Need a commodity item? That’s easy to quantify as to where the best value is. Need a unique item? That’s where the wiles of the government contracting officers are pitted against the wiles of the contractors.

Usually contractors have program offices, and their sole focus boils down to revenue, whether that means running an effective product/service delivery team, or figuring out ways to get “add-on’s” for more product or services. This second part, “add-on’s”, and ill defined requirements from the customer (i.e. the government), is where the majority of excessive costs can be attributed.

You could attack costs by attacking those two items, but the nature of the beast is that they will always be there. The real solution, in the case of space transportation, is to move the responsibility to the private sector. That is where the tables are turned, and companies then become responsible for watching the cost/benefit curve, and where market competition improves service and rids the world of poorly run company and equipment.

We already know that the private sector can run challenging transportation systems, and there is no reason why NASA can’t buy and fly it’s own capsules, so there is no reason not to turn over the design and manufacturer of space vehicles to our aerospace industry. NASA can’t do it better – only more expensively. It’s time.

Heh, I usually take care to insert the word ‘manned’ lest you take offense.

No procurement, regardless of the contracting method used, is prudent unless the government program itself is prudent.

Agreed. And in my opinion very few government programs are prudent.

Stated this way, corruption in government contracting is inevitable. After all, the COTS/CRS requirements economically benefit Orbital and SpaceX.

But they were not designed to benefit Orbital and SpaceX specifically, or even their particular sector of the economy. But if you’re sympathetic to the “government is a racket” point of view, then yes, corruption in government contracting is inevitable.

That’s right, there is policy advantage to encouraging the use of existing commercial systems based on reducing the cost of space access that would outweigh the benefits of an HLV if it can only be shown that one is slightly more cost effective than a non-HLV alternative.

Likewise, there is considerable cost and schedule risk in embarking on a new HLV development that could eat up the cost advantage an HLV unless it can be shown to be considerable to start with. Existing launch vehicles don’t have this risk.

Basically, an HLV must show a considerable life cycle cost advantage to justify its development.

In fact we have had truly commercial spaceflight for decades now.

then it would still be prudent to practice competitive procurement and to use multiple competing suppliers over the course of a program.

No procurement, regardless of the contracting method used, is prudent unless the government program itself is prudent. Ares is obviously imprudent both in its goals and in its contracting method. In the case of “Commercial” Crew, the contracting methodology is somewhat better, but it’s still questionable whether expanding trips to ISS beyond what Soyuz can handle is prudent. It’s certainly not commercial: there are no private customers lining up prepared to foot the multi-billion-dollar bill.

Setting requirements for the economic benefit of certain NASA centers and certain existing suppliers (ATK, USA) is simply corrupt.

Stated this way, corruption in government contracting is inevitable. After all, the COTS/CRS requirements economically benefit Orbital and SpaceX.

The whole commercial/government thing is missing the point. Even if we believe there is no hope for truly commercial spaceflight in our lifetimes, then it would still be prudent to practice competitive procurement and to use multiple competing suppliers over the course of a program. That would almost certainly lead to use of existing launch vehicles, which are more than good enough. Setting requirements for the economic benefit of certain NASA centers and certain existing suppliers (ATK, USA) is simply corrupt. People have gone to jail and are going to jail for less than that. But those who make the law define it in such a way that they are apparently above the law.

Have you ever taken a course in logic?

No one has claimed he has done either. This latest idiotic comment is completely unresponsive to what I wrote.

What an egocentric and rude little man you are.

Wow. Pot, kettle on line two.

What an egocentric and rude little man you are.

et tu, DCSCA?

However, I don’t think Rand is.

FWIW, add C.R. Keith to your “ignore” list.