Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It has taken us longer to duplicate what we did in the 60's than it did for us to do it in the first place. Kind of reminds me of the Soviets reverse engineering the B-29.
For 9 years we have swallowed our pride. Hat in hand. Head bowed. Asked our enemies to safely put our people in space. Yeah that is also part of the Obama legacy .
You state that NASA is "elbow deep" in design, and then you say they "put out a request(s)"
OK, show where their "every rivet" extreme dictation is from. What fed Department of Engineering exists?
What National Laboratory issues edicts and protocols?
Is there a National Aerospace Corporation owned by the government?
Space X, and .gov are contractual partners; private/gov.
Same with Boeing, and Northrop~Grumman, MacDonald Douglas, Lockheed, and countless machine shops across the country.
Sorry, but I disagree with your assessment.
I seem to express myself poorly today. Essentially, it's the difference between having someone develop and build a custom delivery truck for you, while you cover their expenses - vs. contracting with a delivery service at a fixed price per ton delivered. NASA was very beholden to the first model.
The mercifully canceled Ares I was a good example of the custom-built delivery truck. It was written into the bill that it should use a solid-fuel first stage, for instance. That's because Thiokol (or whatever they call themselves these days) has very good lobbyists and NASA even hired one of them to head up the program. It was developed under the cost-plus contract model - every overrun covered by the taxpayer. It would have been owned and operated by NASA, of course. It also managed to gobble up $6 billion for development and was on track to absorb about $20 billion - for a vehicle that would have been comparable to the Falcon 9, if they'd ever managed to develop it.
The Commercial Resupply program takes the opposite approach.
There was an open bid for services, SpaceX and Orbital Sciences won because they offered the best deal. They signed on the dotted line, committing to deliver X number of resupply flights to the ISS for Y amount of dollars, and was left to figure out how on their own. Which they did, with considerable ingenuity. Along the way, SpaceX developed the Falcon 9 at an estimated cost of $500 million and started flying them like clockwork.
Turns out that the commercial model delivers very, very good value to the taxpayer.
Ars Tecnica has a good write-up for those interested.
It has taken us longer to duplicate what we did in the 60's than it did for us to do it in the first place. Kind of reminds me of the Soviets reverse engineering the B-29.
For 9 years we have swallowed our pride. Hat in hand. Head bowed. Asked our enemies to safely put our people in space. Yeah that is also part of the Obama legacy .
You make up stuff in your head. Doesn't make it right.
You make up stuff in your head. Doesn't make it right.
So the fact that U.S. astronauts had to use Russian Rockets to get into space for the past nine years, mostly under Obama is false? Are you purposely deluding yourself?
So the fact that U.S. astronauts had to use Russian Rockets to get into space for the past nine years, mostly under Obama is false? Are you purposely deluding yourself?
Only people with - how do I put this politely? - only people with a limited knowledge US spaceflight policy would blame that on the Obama administration.
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 05-28-2020 at 10:38 AM..
I seem to express myself poorly today. Essentially, it's the difference between having someone develop and build a custom delivery truck for you, while you cover their expenses - vs. contracting with a delivery service at a fixed price per ton delivered. NASA was very beholden to the first model.
The mercifully canceled Ares I was a good example of the custom-built delivery truck. It was written into the bill that it should use a solid-fuel first stage, for instance. That's because Thiokol (or whatever they call themselves these days) has very good lobbyists and NASA even hired one of them to head up the program. It was developed under the cost-plus contract model - every overrun covered by the taxpayer. It would have been owned and operated by NASA, of course. It also managed to gobble up $6 billion for development and was on track to absorb about $20 billion - for a vehicle that would have been comparable to the Falcon 9, if they'd ever managed to develop it.
The Commercial Resupply program takes the opposite approach.
There was an open bid for services, SpaceX and Orbital Sciences won because they offered the best deal. They signed on the dotted line, committing to deliver X number of resupply flights to the ISS for Y amount of dollars, and was left to figure out how on their own. Which they did, with considerable ingenuity. Along the way, SpaceX developed the Falcon 9 at an estimated cost of $500 million and started flying them like clockwork.
Turns out that the commercial model delivers very, very good value to the taxpayer.
Ars Tecnica has a good write-up for those interested.
You state that NASA is "elbow deep" in design, and then you say they "put out a request(s)"
OK, show where their "every rivet" extreme dictation is from. What fed Department of Engineering exists?
What National Laboratory issues edicts and protocols?
Is there a National Aerospace Corporation owned by the government?
Space X, and .gov are contractual partners; private/gov.
Same with Boeing, and Northrop~Grumman, MacDonald Douglas, Lockheed, and countless machine shops across the country.
Sorry, but I disagree with your assessment.
All you really need to understand to see the difference is that cost plus which is the historical model, basically encourages cost and schedule overruns because the government picks up any additional cost that the supplier reports.
The commercial crew contracts are firm fixed price, which encourages delivery on schedule and budget because the commercial company and not NASA/the government is responsible for cost overruns in most cases.
Incorrect. Obama began the commercial crew program which this launch is being conducted under.
NASA has been working on a similar system to launch humans into space which goes back to the Bush Administration in 2004. Here is a link to the announcement for that program:
President Bush has unveiled a new vision for space exploration, calling on NASA to "gain a new foothold on the moon and to prepare for new journeys to the worlds beyond our own."
In a speech at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C., the President said that the "new course for America's space program" would give NASA a new focus and clear objectives for the future. We do not know where this journey will end," said Bush, "yet we know this: Human beings are headed into the cosmos."
[T]he United States will begin developing a new manned exploration vehicle, called the Crew Exploration Vechicle (CEV). The first craft to explore beyond Earth orbit since the Apollo days, the spacecraft would be developed and tested by 2008 and conduct its first manned mission no later than 2014. Though its main purpose would be to leave Earth orbit, the vehicle would also ferry astronauts to and from the International Space Station after the shuttle is retired.
When Obama took office in 2009, he re-crafted all of that under his own banner and claimed it as his own. Attribute it to whatever president anyone likes, NASA has been working on this for 16 years now across the administrations of three Presidents - Bush, Obama and Trump. And they still have not finished it yet.
Also, the amount of money that NASA has already spent on this has been truly astonishing. It is time for NASA to retire from performing these functions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
