” The LM execs get graded on meeting their revenue goals, regardless the public chatter of whether a government contract is worthwhile or not.”

I believe it is slightly more subtle than that, e.g. revolving doors…

“Running Constellation into the ground doesn’t look good on Griffin’s resume, but individual workers cannot be blamed.”

Griffin was the customer. The LM execs get graded on meeting their revenue goals, regardless the public chatter of whether a government contract is worthwhile or not.

Except for high level management positions if it fails. Running Constellation into the ground doesn’t look good on Griffin’s resume, but individual workers cannot be blamed.

“I don’t know how I could convince you of it but it has to do with the company’s capabilities and business plan including the reporting to shareholders.”

I’ve worked for a number of government contractors, some the largest in their field (or just the largest, period), with part of my time in management working daily with the program managers, who are the ones with P&L responsibility. The MPCV has enthusiastic supporters in Congress, and it’s just space hardware, not some sort of questionable tools of war, so there is nothing to be controversial about when bidding for the work.

“Boeing is public. Yes they care the customers will pay them indeed and maybe, just maybe, they think or know the customer will not pay and they will end up with a workforce they will have to feed on their profit (indirect) or, well, lay off.”

As long as the government signs the contract, and the company does the prescribed work, then the government will pay. That’s why everyone loves government work. Sure programs get cancelled, but that is less of a problem with large companies than with small – at one company I worked at, we just called it “looking for coverage” (i.e. finding another program to join). I guess I’ve experienced this too much to get excited.

“Even a large defense contractor has some sort of reputation to defend or people, the best people, may just no go work for them anymore. You better believe this.”

Remember we’re just talking about space hardware that may or may not be the right design for our future needs, not cluster bombs that look like toys. The reputation issue is not based on one contract, but more on the perception of the opportunities that the company holds for current and potential employees. I’ve worked for companies that were the hot spot to work, and I’ve worked for companies that were “not exciting” (that was the largest DoD contractor at the time).

The MPCV contract is not going to taint anyone, since it’s how well they do their individual jobs that is most important.

That’s my experience anyways…

If Boeing thinks that MPCV/Orion is dead they will not bid for zombie program. It takes millions of dollars to run a counter bid and Boeing already obviously lost quite a few on the CEV proposal possibly $Ms on Ares and on CEV where they did have some work. If they don’t go after it and yet they go after CCDev, believe me it is because they know something. Or they believe they know something. Who do you think is running CCDev at Boeing? Inquire and the truth shall set you free…

In the same vein, it is not true that $Bs are $Bs. I don’t know how I could convince you of it but it has to do with the company’s capabilities and business plan including the reporting to shareholders. Boeing is public. Yes they care the customers will pay them indeed and maybe, just maybe, they think or know the customer will not pay and they will end up with a workforce they will have to feed on their profit (indirect) or, well, lay off. Even a large defense contractor has some sort of reputation to defend or people, the best people, may just no go work for them anymore. You better believe this. Ever had a manager with all the cash you did not want to work for, no matter the cash?

“or maybe 3) that MPCV actually is dead and that Boeing will not commit any resource to this scam.”

I think there is a 50% chance that the MPCV will become operational – better than that for a test flight.

Boeing has a number of challenges in their non-commercial business areas, and I think they see the CST-100 as an area where they can be one of the first into a new market.

My guess is that Boeing also sees the MPCV as a pure custom-build contract for NASA, and that after the recent NASA announcement about the MPCV specs lining up substantially with the Orion specs, that a challenge would have a limited chance to succeed.

“But you need to remember that the real cash lies with the LV in this business, not the capsule.”

$Billions are $Billions, so if they thought they could get a billion dollar contract, they would go for it. They don’t care whether it has a use, they only care that the customer will pay them.

The SLS situation is getting interesting now. Before I would have given the program a 30% chance of becoming operational, but if they do compete the contract, I think the percentage may actually go up, not down. Still won’t make it anymore useful.

“You’re welcome but it really is nasawatch.com that did…”

There are only so many hours in the day, and I don’t read NASAWatch.com. Thanks for spreading the word.

“nonsense. you are not a Texan unless you live in Texas. I was born in Texas, grew up in Texas and even though a good chunk of my adult life was overseas…I am a Texan; I have direct relatives whose names are on the wall at San Jac. Dont lecture me on what is good for TX.”

I could not help but smile at the 1/4 Texan thing. I lived in Houston for sometime and indeed if you are not living in TX you certainly are not a Texan. Some even argue that Houston is not in TX.

There is a book that gives a glimpse I believe in that being a Texan thing: Texas, James Michener.

Wonder if my time spent there makes me a Texan as well?

Oh well…

“I could be wrong, but I think we would have heard something from Boeing by now if they wanted to challenge who builds the MPCV. I think they are the only American manufacturer that could convincingly compete for it at this point.”

Maybe, maybe not. Or maybe you could assume that 1) Boeing in Houston won a CCDev contract or 2) Boeing in Huntington Beach might look for work and we haven’t really heard anything just yet… or maybe 3) that MPCV actually is dead and that Boeing will not commit any resource to this scam. I don’t know. MPCV will not be any way. I believe you could argue the same for SLS and we could just let it die. But you need to remember that the real cash lies with the LV in this business, not the capsule. Remember also that Boeing had the 2nd stage of Ares and yet they competed for CCDev, that must mean something…

“Glad you pointed this out.”

You’re welcome but it really is nasawatch.com that did…

“We’re drifting off-topic, but I’m enjoying our conversation, so let’s do it anyway.”

Discuss, debate and learn, that’s why I spend time here, and I think you’re bringing up good questions.

“You mean if it is steered in the hab direction?”

No I was thinking if someone wanted to take away the MPCV contract from LM and still build the same old capsule.

“In that case Bigelow would be a more plausible supplier.”

Agreed.

“But I’m not at all opposed to NASA spending money on a deep space spaceship, as long as they don’t do it instead of establishing a propellant launch market or if they delay it as a consequence. And as long as they don’t reinvent what doesn’t need to be reinvented such as capsules (Dragon / CST-100) or habs (Bigelow).”

What I would really love is a NASA sponsored gathering of industry and academia to develop a roadmap for the general transportation side of space exploration, and would cover payloads, resupply cargo and people. This would include delivering people, payloads and cargo to the surface of all planned destinations (Moon, NEO’s & Mars).

So far NASA has done some forward looking planning (HEFT & Nautilus-X), but there is no roadmap for the entire industry to get behind. Industries like predictability, because that lets them understand their risks and opportunities better.

Your promotion of a propellant marketplace fits in with that, as I would hope that the standards are defined for the interfaces and communications so that we don’t end up with a hodge-podge of different ones in space (i.e. I have an Exxon fuel transfer adapter, so I can’t get fuel from the Shell station).

Regarding Dragon, I think it’s good enough basic transportation for the near-term, and since it has a huge amount of trunk payload space, I think the real limits would be based more on how many days X number of people can tolerate each other inside the capsule. I imagine the rule of thumb would be one day for seven people, longer than seven days for one person – something like that. But generally only used when you are coming from or journeying back to Earth.

“Hall may not be from Houston, but he’s ptting Houston’s interests up front as a fellow Texan should. (I’m 1/4 Texan, so I fully understand that)”

nonsense. you are not a Texan unless you live in Texas. I was born in Texas, grew up in Texas and even though a good chunk of my adult life was overseas…I am a Texan; I have direct relatives whose names are on the wall at San Jac. Dont lecture me on what is good for TX.

What Hall is standing up for (as is the rep in TX22) are their campaign contributions. Otherwise they wouldnt know space policy if it hit them on the head (neither would the turd in TX022) RGO