If you think you’re a fool, I’d be the last to argue with you.

Well, “the guy who ran the event” talked to Bob Walker at an event tonight, and he didn’t say anything about that, despite the fact that the same guy emailed him this morning asking him for critical feedback. Bob Walker isn’t the kind of guy who’s so polite that he won’t criticize someone who asks for criticism when getting things right is really really important, and he seems to want to continue to do this sort of thing without a change in personnel, so I’m guessing that the cowardly anonymous troll that calls itself “NASA Guy” is lying. Just a guess, though…

Wise men and fools. Which is which? The one who knows himself to be wise, or the one who knows himself to be a fool?

Cheers!

“The challenge has always been to reorient the business models NASA contractors have been used to. This is no small feat, since we’re talking about contractor facilities and personnel (with high salary expectations) that have been built up over a long period of time.”

Yes, it will be very difficult for these companies to make that adjustment, and I’m not sure they will succeed. A friend who just retired from Lockheed-Martin recently expressed deep skepticism on this point. There is a deeply ingrained bureaucratic culture there which comes from so many years of federal contracting. These are organizations that don’t know how to be nimble and efficient. They may be brilliant technically but they are plodding behemoths organizationally. Everything is accompanied by enough committees and paperwork to choke a horse.

That’s why disruptive change to an economy usually comes from the startups. They hire the brightest guys away from the old guard and then outmaneuver them. In this case, however, the lion’s share of the early investment is coming from a government agency (NASA). The big guys like Boeing who are trying to compete in the new arena may be successful anyway because their track record makes NASA more comfortable giving them a couple of billion dollars.

In reference to the above, I refer you to the following article where ULA is commenting on the rising price of the RL-10 engine used in the Atlas V. Seems Pratt and Witney have all this capacity which will be unused now the Shuttle is finished and the only place it can go is on the RL-10.

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110204-engine-costs-drive-atlas5-prices.html

Gee, they’ve had how long to sort this out. Again, the true challenge has been trying to get the old business as usual contractors to change just as much as NASA. Seems more than a few people have had their heads in the sand. Seems they never sort to develop new markets, products, or simply downsize!!!

And at a cost that no sane taxpayer will tolerate, which is why it ended forty years ago.

If I were wanting to make some of your ideas actually fly

Sure glad you’re not me. And even more that I’m not you.

I would shy away from any appearance of diverting NASA’s exploration budget into a dedicated welfare program for tycoons, technologists, and environmentalists.

Fortunately, it only appears that way to clueless fools. Instead it is a dedicated welfare program for well-heeled space companies with lobbyists in Washington, with contracts that pay them whether they perform or not.

“Also, we aren’t supporting “commercial” so much as reform in procurement methods, as some commenters note. For instance, we’re happy to see Boeing get CCDev contracts, though it’s not traditionally a “commercial” company on the space side.”

I’m glad you pointed that out. I for one think it would be wonderful to get Boeing into the spacecraft business, since they have a lot of experience building long-lasting products that are used frequently. Other companies too.

The challenge has always been to reorient the business models NASA contractors have been used to. This is no small feat, since we’re talking about contractor facilities and personnel (with high salary expectations) that have been built up over a long period of time.

The company stockholders are not going to be happy when these aerospace divisions start forecasting reduced revenues AND reduced profits, just to create a robust commercial space industry. This is also one of the reasons why politicians are not enthusiastically supporting this national need, because it affects their direct or indirect money streams.

Again, good effort by you and the group.