Hardly. You shouted at Matt “… I already told you why they aren’t lobbying for non-SLS and non-Orion approaches to space exploration – BECAUSE THEY MAKE MORE MONEY BUILDING THE SLS AND ORION!”

Given this statement and its tone of admonishment, it is natural to assume that this was not an opinion you were stating, but an issue of fact. A tactic you use on a regular basis to silence those that don’t agree with you. I asked you to back up that statement of fact (which you haven’t yet done by the way). In contrast, I clearly prefaced my comment as an opinion only. Read and comprehend Ron.

Then you really hit the dirt trail with this one:

“Cost Plus? Where do you get that? Each launch in individually negotiated. Not only that, but ULA gets $1B/year on top of that for “overhead and facilities cost”.”

If you had actually read and comprehended the statement, you would have recognized that the comment on cost-plus was in reference to Boeing’s and Lockheed’s contracts for SLS and Orion respectively. Let me replay the statement:

“In my opinion only, I doubt either Boeing or LM make more money on SLS or Orion. As a cost-plus contract, their fee is likely in the 10-12% range which, depending on their accounting models, translates to probably 9-10% profit (or free cash).”

Read and comprehend Ron. It is really a basic skill you should learn before posting for all of the world to see. It might save you from demonstrating the fool you are. Doing a little research would also help as your ignorance on NG space capabilities demonstrates.

Also, just as a clarification, ULA does not negotiate each launch individually, at least not with DoD which is their primary customer. In the last acquisition round (Nov, 2012) totaling 50 rocket cores, ULA was awarded a block buy of 36 with the remaining 14 to be selected based on competitive bids. This is the first time since the formation of ULA that DoD has opened up launch opportunities for DoD national assets to anyone other than ULA. And before you embarrass yourself again Ron, ULA cannot, by law, bid on commercial launches. Only their parent companies are allowed to do that. That is why both Boeing and LM maintain Commercial Launch Services organizations within their respective corporate structures.

As you have admonished others on this thread “… it’s pretty easy to understand things …, if you do a little research. You should try it sometime…” (smiley face)

First you chastise me:

“Do you have numbers to back up that statement? I doubt you do.”

But then you do what you said I did:

“In my opinion only, I doubt either Boeing or LM make more money on SLS or Orion.”

Double standards, eh?

“As a cost-plus contract, their fee is likely in the 10-12% range which, depending on their accounting models, translates to probably 9-10% profit (or free cash).”

Cost Plus? Where do you get that? Each launch in individually negotiated. Not only that, but ULA gets $1B/year on top of that for “overhead and facilities cost”.

You know the GAO issues a report on ULA just about every year, right?

You need to go back to square one and re-educate yourself.

NG is the current builder of JWST. Hardly a commercial satellite. NG was the satellite provider for the now defunct NPOESS constellation (NOAA/NASA). Hardly a commercial satellite. NG built the two NASA EOS satellites; AQUA and AURA. These are Earth sensing missions. They built the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory and Chandra X-ray Observatory (old TRW which was acquired in 2002). Not exactly commercial satellites. NG was the builder for the DoD DSP satellites. Not exactly a commercial satellite. They designed and built the DoD DSCS-II comm satellites. Not exactly a commercial satellite. The DoD/IC list is longer. You really don’t know who does what, do you?

“And regarding Boeing and Lockheed Martin, I already told you why they aren’t lobbying for non-SLS and non-Orion approaches to space exploration – BECAUSE THEY MAKE MORE MONEY BUILDING THE SLS AND ORION!”

Do you have numbers to back up that statement? I doubt you do. In my opinion only, I doubt either Boeing or LM make more money on SLS or Orion. As a cost-plus contract, their fee is likely in the 10-12% range which, depending on their accounting models, translates to probably 9-10% profit (or free cash). This is not all that impressive in terms of profit compared to most other business sectors but it is extremely low risk and that is why Boeing and LM prefer to execute Government contracts. I suspect Boeing and LM make more, in terms of profit, via the EELV business line.

Unless you can convince those members on the committees in both houses that deal with NASA that such a program would be beneficial, not just to their competition, but to everyone, it’s not going to get approval. If those who manufacture commercial rockets were so interested, why aren’t they lobbying for NASA to use their vehicles for NASA BEO missions? Not just Atlas V and Delta IV Heavy, but Falcon 9/Falcon 9 Heavy as well…

Again, there’s plenty of blame to go around, but I blame the Administration: they assumed Congress would just roll over and play dead, that the blowback from affected communities and firms would be easily contained, and that a then-Democratic controlled congress (this is prior to the Nov ’10 midterm election, mind you) would approve their proposals wholeheartedly. They were wrong. Even Sen. Nelson, who got POTUS to go to the Cape for that speech at that choir meeting known as a “Space Summit”, was critical of the Administration’s revised plans after that. Not a good way to get started, if you get one of your regular supporters on the other side.

“KSC Employment Dips Below Lowest Point”

KSC’s total work force this summer dipped below 8,000 for the first time since NASA began keeping comprehensive records in 1964, two years after the center was formally established.

“It will never be what it was during shuttle and Apollo,” Cabana said recently at an exhibit of the retired shuttle Atlantis at the KSC Visitor Complex. “It’s a different time, but I think it’s definitely a positive atmosphere here. Things are improving greatly on a weekly basis.”

If you get into the detail of the numbers, it turns out that the number of NASA civil servants is actually up from where it was about ten years ago. The reduction has been mostly with the contractors.

I know James Dean didn’t intend it this way, but the article will certain give more ammunition to people who think the sole purpose of the U.S. space program is to protect lifelong government contractor jobs for space worker union members.

It’s a time of change. Some people don’t like change. Especially if that change means their guaranteed-for-life government job isn’t guaranteed any more because it’s obsolete.

There are plenty of people in NASA who are thrilled with commercial cargo and crew, with the ISS, etc. And then there are people who are fantasizing that Apollo will magically happen again.

It doesn’t matter. As with any other agency or business, the people at the top determine the policy.

I think it’s safe to say these are viewpoints NASA officials aren’t sharing with President Obama’s administration nor the members of Congress. But having spoken to a number of current NASA officials and even astronauts, many of them will privately express these views as well.

Bob Clark

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2013/09/apollo-legend-on-nasa-its-a-tragedy-it-really-is/

Once again we are plagued with no property rights regime yet. On terra firma you have mineral rights auctions all the time, and rights are freely traded. In North Dakota, we have been selling mineral rights for coal .. since … forever. Coal companies will have speculative rights on property that have been around since the turn of the century and never been exercised. But they are carried in the books as an asset. Their value is always changing as coal prices change.

So even if not a single pound of asteroid has actually been mined, we could have a pretty robust speculative market for real estate and mineral rights for offworld proporties.