Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?
From: Jeff Findley (jeff.findley_at_ugs.nojunk.com)
Date: 03/24/05
- Next message: Jeff Findley: "Re: Jeff, why waste the time?"
- Previous message: bz: "Re: Knot theory as pivotal in telling us how gravity works and the overall geometry of the Cosmos"
- In reply to: Eric Chomko: "Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?"
- Next in thread: Eric Chomko: "Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?"
- Reply: Eric Chomko: "Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:42:18 -0500
"Eric Chomko" <echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu> wrote in message
news:d1v1g5$15bd$1@news.ums.edu...
> Jeff Findley (jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com) wrote:
> : Ignoring the prizes for a moment, what I want is akin to the USPS paying
> : airliners to deliver mail. The current situation is akin to having the
USPS
> : spec, buy, and operate its own airliners in order to deliver mail.
>
> Suppose USPS simply went away, what incentive is their for Company X to
> spec, buy and operate the plane? In hopes that USPS will simply come along
> in the future?!
There would still be UPS, FedEx, DHL, and etc, all using the same standard
cargo containers flying on the same types of cargo aircraft. In addition to
these "big players", many other companies ship items by air.
Many (most?) cargo aircraft are simply passenger airliners with the seats
and overhead bins removed (and other relatively minor modifications). The
way the plane operates and flies isn't changed, so these cargo aircraft
aren't really unique at all. They are a commodity item you can buy new or
used.
The point is that these cargo companies don't go to Boeing and have them
design a new aircraft type for them. They pick and choose from what Boeing
has to offer. Many times, they simply buy used passenger aircraft and rip
out the seats (among other minor modifications). Boeing, in turn, listens
to *all* of its customers when it is designing new aircraft types.
This isn't how NASA obtained the space shuttle. NASA had nearly complete
control over the design and contiues to have nearly complete control over
its operation.
> : NASA needs to get out of running its own launch vehicle business and buy
> : space on launch vehicles based on who is the lowest bidder. Let the
private
> : companies decide how to make their vehicles cheaper in order to keep
getting
> : business from NASA.
>
> I believe that that is what is going on with unmanned launches to some
> degree. I mean no one is complaining that the MER mission launch vehicle
> was too expensive, etc.
Too some degree. Notice that Boeing has just now returned the Delta IV to
the commercial market under pressure from the US Air force. It's possible
that without such pressure, Boeing would have been content at keeping Delta
IV alive solely on the US taxpayer's dime. And the shuttle is still
operated by NASA, despite the fact that many of the paychecks say USA on
them. NASA has, in the past, gotten contractor employees fired. You
wouldn't think they'd have that kind of control over a private company's
employees, but they do.
> : The current "cost plus" style of contracts provides a negative incentive
to
> : lower launch costs. That is to say that the contractor is better served
by
> : making sure there is always a "plus" to the initial "cost" that won them
the
> : contract.
>
> But the "+" also means that the company has garnered favor for future
> work.
You got it. That's why Boeing and Lockheed Martin remain the only two big
players in the US ELV market. That's why they're pushing for evolutions of
their ELV's for future NASA missions. They have low development "cost" at
the beginning, but high "plus" value on every launch.
> : > : Because we don't want NASA to be in competition with the private
> : companies
> : > : we're trying to stimulate.
> : >
> : > Squelching competition, regardless of where it comes from, is the
> : > antithesis of industry. Somewhere your plan is lacking substance and
puts
> : > a scapegoat unto the government for a fledgling industry that is
lacking
> : > direction.
>
> : You really don't want to be in direct competition with the US
government.
>
> And the government shouldn't be in the profit making business as are
> corporations.
True, which would theoretically mean that you'd never be able to turn a
profit if your business was in competition with the government. Not is the
government agency prohibited from making a profit, but who's to stop the
government from heavily subsidizing their agency, making it impossible for a
private corporation to compete?
Note that is exactly what the US government was trying to do with the
shuttle. It was to be *the* US launch vehicle, so commercial launches on it
*were* heavily subsidized by the US government. It's a bit hard to compete
with the US government in that situation.
> : That makes it very hard to convince investors that you have a good
business
> : plan.
>
> Make CATS for real and NASA and other govt. agencies will use it.
Without investors, CATS will never happen. Without a gaurentee that the US
government will stay out of the marketplace, investors won't want to bet
their money against the US government.
CATS won't come cheaply, especially if the US government doesn't openly
support it. Their current policies simply don't support CATS. As we both
seem to agree, the US government seems content to keep giving huge cost plus
contracts to the usual suspects (Boeing and Lockheed Martin).
You keep saying CATS will somehow break this cycle, but CATS won't come for
free, so where do you suppose the money will come from?
> : I don't necessarily feel that the industry would have been better off
today
> : if NASA had not existed at all. But NASA has done great damage to the
> : industry. In the 70's, everyone pinned their hopes on the shuttle as
being
> : the Space Transportation System (i.e. the STS prefix used for mission
> : numebring). It was to launch *all* NASA, military, and commercial
> : satellites for the US. When the shuttle failed to live up to its
promises,
> : commercial launches were banned and the military pulled out of the
program
> : and started launching Titain IV's (which weren't cheap, even compared to
the
> : shuttle).
>
> : The launch industry in the US remains today an industry that is
dominated by
> : government contractors who just happen to sell a few private launches on
> : their goverenment sponsored ELV's. This is arguably a direct
consequence of
> : the US government trying to provide all US launch services with the
shuttle.
>
> Who launched IntelSat and other commercial sattelites?
http://samadhi.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/Programs/intelsat.html
Looks like they started off using Delta D and then used various other
Delta's, then switched to Atlas Centaur. Following that, they used
Ariane's and Titans in addition to the Atlas Centaur. Please note that all
of these launch vehicles were developed with heavy government subsidies and
most (the US models) were directly derived from military missiles and/or
launch vehicles.
> : If NASA were banned from developing its own "NASA specific" launch
vehicles
> : in the future, it would go a long way to insuring investors that NASA
won't
> : try to create STS-II (which is what some at NASA were pushing when it
became
> : clear that the first STS wouldn't capture the entire launch market in
the
> : US).
>
> 2nd generation shuttle or STS-II doesn't exist yet. No one can agree on
> what to make. This is your chance. Make it! Make it cheap and how can NASA
> then compete? They will be forced to buy. The problem there is that there
> isn't enough venture capital to make STS-II without a customer as is your
> want. So you are stuck with nothing. Eventually something will give, but
> until it does govt. agencies like NASA are the only game in town. The
> reality of the situation is that SS1 is a long way away from becoming the
> next shuttle.
Let's see you convince investors that the US government can be forced into
buying your luanch vehicle, when they've got a vested interest in keeping
jobs at KSC and Vandenburg AFB.
> : > If NASA wasn't going into
> : > space then no one would be going into space in the US. The commercial
> : > space industry is where it is because THAT is where it is, not because
> : > something is in the way preventing them from developing their
products.
> : > And developing their products for exactly whom if NASA wasn't around?
>
> : Then how do you explain NASA selling commercial launches? Wasn't that
> : taking away revenue from the existing US ELV business? Didn't that
stifle
> : investment in improvements in US ELV's until it became clear that the US
> : wasn't going to allow anymore commercial launches on STS? Didn't the
USAF
> : have to dump billions into the Titan IV program as a replacement for the
STS
> : in order to get its payloads launched?
>
> Maybe the DOD should have been forced to live with the shuttle? Why did
> they get a pass?
Because the shuttle flight rate wansn't ever going to be high enough for
them to fly all the birds that they needed to fly. The Challenger disaster
let them use the "safety" issues at VAFB as an excuse to pull out. The
reality was that they couldn't live with the low flight rate coupled with
multi-year stand downs whenever a disaster happened. And as history has
shown, there was another disaster which caused another multi-year shuttle
stand down.
DOD did the right thing. They put national security first and pulled out of
the shuttle program at the first opportunity.
> : I just don't want history to keep repeating itself. If NASA is banned
from
> : developing its own vehicles, then we will have learned from our mistakes
> : made with STS.
>
> ...and have nothing as a result as there is no incentive to leap from SS1
> to a commercial shuttle due to lack of a self-sustaining industry. Face it
> we are at least a decade away and squelching govt. agencies from
> doing manned sdpaceflight isn't the answer.
>
> Create a proposal that does CATS and do it!
There are many proposals and many startups. What they lack the most is
funding. My suggestions would include a guarantee from the US government
that NASA won't develop its own launch vehicle to replace the shuttle,
making private investors more likely to invest. My suggestions would also
have the US government provide prizes and/or contracts to startups which
actually develop a vehicle that meets certain goals, like getting people and
supplies to ISS and back.
Sending people and supplies to ISS is something the US is committed to do
*anyway*, so why not use that money to pay startups for their services
rather than awarding the money as cost plus contracts to the usual suspects?
Jeff
-- Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.
- Next message: Jeff Findley: "Re: Jeff, why waste the time?"
- Previous message: bz: "Re: Knot theory as pivotal in telling us how gravity works and the overall geometry of the Cosmos"
- In reply to: Eric Chomko: "Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?"
- Next in thread: Eric Chomko: "Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?"
- Reply: Eric Chomko: "Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
