Comments on: A post-shutdown roundup

By: Ameriman

Ameriman — Sun, 03 Nov 2013 13:48:47 +0000

The Tea Party would never understand this concept, mainly since they really donâ€™t appear to have any business sense to them in general.
========= =
So, the Tea Party patriots ( responsible, productive farmers businessmen, engineers, taxpayers) who object to the Obama Democrat $10 trillion of new bankrupting Democrat deficits have ‘no business concept…. while I suppose irresponsible, greedy liberals/Dems, the takers who created and the debt do?

The Bush administration issued ‘fixed cost’ COTS contracts to SpaceX…. the entire 12 flight SpaceX COTS contract was for less than the cost of a single Govt/Nasa shuttle flight($1.6 billion)….

The problem, of course, is that with fixed cost/service contracts, Govt/pols/nasa lose control… and lose Govt jobs..

SpaceX has backed up it’s claim that private industry is 10 times more efficient/effective than Govt/Nasa in space business..

However Govt/pols/Nasa will continue ‘cost plus’ contracts because it justifies their jobs, leaves them in control.. to dictate stupidity, waste, incompetence, pork.

By: Ameriman

Ameriman — Sun, 03 Nov 2013 13:35:40 +0000

the (nasa Constellation) project was never fully funded
========
Nasa is a greedy, bloated, pork driven, incompetent Federal Agency.. there is no funding, however massive, which is ‘adequate’… while Nasa blew $20 billion failing on Constellation, private enterprise SpaceX produced vastly superior boosters/capsules for only $300 million.
Nasa has blown 40 years and $500 billion on HSF since Apollo, without getting a single American beyond low earth orbit, leaving itself incompetent/incapable of crewing or even resupplying our own space station… instead we got the $1.6 billion/flight unaffordable, dangerous, unreliable boondoggle shuttle, the useless $200 billion white elephant ISS, the miserably failed/cancelled $20 billion Constellation…. now the shamelessly unneeded, unsustainable, earmakred pork SLS/Orion…
Govt is inherently and inescapably greedy, incompetent, corrupt.. it (like Nasa) can’t be fixed.. Govt/Nasa can only be minimized and decentralized to reduce what it can steal, screw up, corrupt, bankrupt.
We need to downsize/eliminate Nasa and it’s useless deadwood centers/HQ… instead use the NSF to directly fund Caltech’s JPL for probes, and private enterprise like SpaceX for boosters and US manned space.

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:28:40 +0000

There is nothing in the Space Act about NASA building big rockets. But you’ve probably never read the Space Act.

By: Ben Russell-Gough

Ben Russell-Gough — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:12:09 +0000

Almightwind wrote: Tell that to the Chinese.

Why? Seriously, this is not a size competition. If there is a competition, it's in capability which is also measured by launch rate and cost-effectiveness. Something like the EELV Phase-2 (which is essentially what the Chinese are building with Long March-9 anyway) would be a better competitor for Long March-9 than SLS. On a semi-related note, SpaceX are planning to start testing their next-generation LNG-burning engine next year. It could possibly lead to a competitor EELV Phase-2-class vehicle. I'm not cheer-leading here; who knows if it will work? However, combined with what the Chinese are apparently planning for their Long March-5 (Delta-IV-class) and Long March-9 (EELV Phase-2-class) it does seem to suggest strongly that the preferred HLV solution amongst those who have designed and deployed new rockets in the more recent past is a scalable 25t to 100t IMLEO modular design rather than a single-stick 100t+ SHLV.

By: Vladislaw

Vladislaw — Wed, 23 Oct 2013 17:29:18 +0000

the chinese are not building monster rockets, their lunar plans were based on our Delta IV equivilent and Griffin testified to congress that he had did the research and the chinese can goto the moon with their medium lift.

What he didn’t explain is .. why then was the U.S. prepared to spend 200 billion building two new rockets to goto the moon if we already had two rockets, the Atlas V and Delta IV that could get us there?

By: Vladislaw

Vladislaw — Wed, 23 Oct 2013 17:25:55 +0000

That is what I was refering to CS.. it seems that cost plus is just a cover for doing things the old pork way. I do understand when you are doing “bleeding edge” technology development, there has to be budgetary flexiblity. BUT is EVERY contract done under cost plus, bleeding edge AND just because a tech IS bleeding edge, does that mean it should be cost plused into existence at this particular point in time, is it just another a bell or whistle that really is not going to advance anything in the near term other than a new development contract.

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Wed, 23 Oct 2013 02:57:03 +0000

THese conservative scribes aren’t kidding anybody. They don’t give a damn about space exploration– their goal is to erode government on all fronts, be it NASA or the ACA.

By: vulture4

vulture4 — Wed, 23 Oct 2013 00:26:05 +0000

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2013/10/20/a-post-shutdown-roundup/?replytocom=438134#respond

The largest Chinese rocket under development, the CZ-5, is in the same class as the Delta IV Heavy.

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 23:33:26 +0000

amightywind said:

“Tell that to the Chinese.”

Why should we tell them that they are taking the wrong approach? If they can’t see and understand what the U.S. has experienced with the Constellation program, and are currently experiencing with the SLS, then maybe they deserve to make their own mistakes.

Besides, they are having problems bending metal for their Delta IV Heavy clone, so I don’t think they will be building an SLS clone any time soon…

“A foolish assertion meant to denigrate one of NASAâ€™s few legitimate activities.”

Piffle. Please show us where competing with an established and highly-capable private sector is one of NASA’s few legitimate activities?

Ronald Reagan would be very disappointed in you for this comment. In fact, this type of comment shows that you are more of a BIG-government type than you think you are. How odd, huh?

By: Malmesbury

Malmesbury — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 23:13:08 +0000

If you break a development plan down far enough you can build a river system of fixed price development tasks – the results of the earlier development tasks suggest which tributary you move down…

The problem is that cost plus becomes cost plus and plus and plus… Overruns become good for business. Cut the cost of the development and get a black mark from your boss…

The biggest issue is FAR combined with a “winner” picked at the proposal stage. The politicians love it because they can control the money flow in detail. The big companies love it because they can play the political game and charge the cost of the paperwork to the tax payer. If the cost go up, their profits are safe – hell, it’s better business. Trebles all round.