Article: Taking Back NASA

Charles Buckley wrote in message ...
Eric Chomko wrote:

Ool ) wrote:
: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message ...
: Hansel ) wrote:


snip
: Come on, twenty-five years of using the same old jalopies until the
: oldest of them all eventually breaks apart means there must be *some*
: roadblock to progress somewhere...!

Agreed, NASA needs more money to run efficiently.



I'll have to disagree on that point. The last thing that NASA
needs is more money. It has not used what it has efficiently.
More money just means more money.

NASA has *never* operated a large program within it's budget
and it has never even met it's own internal estimates on cost.
It does a lot better with smaller, focussed, programs, but it
still tends to use more money to add more complexity.

The key words here a "large program." NACA got the job
of being NASA, because it served the civilian and military
aviation industry so well and so selflessly. NACA never really
has any large programs comparable to Mercury, Gemini, Apollo,
Space Shuttle or ISS. What we need is a NACAA--a decentralized
Advisory Committee with largely independent research centers
that compete and cooperate on a lot of small research projects.

Case in
point.. OSP was a straight forward program with a specific technical
goal. Yet, three separate NASA centers had separate offices specifically
for that program - and as far as I can tell, none were subservient to
any of the others. Hardly efficient.

When it comes to true, innovative, competitive research, there
is no such thing as duplication. The problem is that we have
OSPs, NASPS, Space Shuttles, etc. that are preconceived solutions
to a basic problem--rather than truly competitive approaches to
a basic problem such as the need for frequent, reliable, low-cost
access to space. And for this basic problem, it is way past time
that private industry should be supplying efficient space transportion
in response to government-generated and commercial-generated
markets for large amounts of tonnage to LEO at low cost.

This type of infrastructure would allow an NACAA to do
very ambitious space exploration at far lower cost than is
now being projected going back to the moon and manned
explorations to Mars. With the proper, commercially-oriented
space transportation infrastructure, space exploration would
not have to be a budget-busting, all-consuming program. I
would envisage a number of relatively small projects--not
programs--conducted by more than one NACAA research center.

To get a feel for an organization, you have to look at how it has
operated in the past. What sections are the most efficient? What
happened to areas when they recieved a budget increase? What happened
when budgets decreased? NASA does not fare well in that sort of
analysis. NASA deliberately lied to congress about the costs of
developing Shuttle rather than build a Shuttle that they could
afford to build. NASA completely botched NASP and Space Station
Freedom on technical issues.

NACA peformed very well. NASA has been a huge bureaucracy
since 1959, when I worked at NASA headquarters. I worked as a
summer intern at NACA Ames in 1952--what a world of difference.
Too much money for oversize programs has been the problem--not
the reverse.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
( http://www.tour2space.com )

lots of peoples messages snipped

The space shuttle and the ISS don't address this issue. If the US were
serious about manned space exploration, they would help private
industry develope manned vehicles. That's one of the things about the
Bush program. He can get rid of the shuttle and make NASA a steady
customer of private companies rather than a well-funded rival who can
shut down the market for decades.

NASA is a steady customer of private companies. Most of NASA's money,
for its large projects like Shuttle and ISS, in fact the vast majority
of its money goes to large companies. I'm not sure what you mean here.

Anyway guys, about the Shuttle and ISS, you don't need to spend any
time developing some strange new launch vehicle, like SSTO or
something. I mean, in cost per kilogram, using the Saturn V would
apparently be better than the Shuttle, if I remember correctly. And we
can certainly do better than that.

In my view we should simply switch back to expendables. There is no
reason to be using the Shuttle. It just makes no sense economically.
Meanwhile we can try developing better options to replace the
expendables.

lots of peoples messages snipped

The space shuttle and the ISS don't address this issue. If the US were
serious about manned space exploration, they would help private
industry develope manned vehicles. That's one of the things about the
Bush program. He can get rid of the shuttle and make NASA a steady
customer of private companies rather than a well-funded rival who can
shut down the market for decades.

NASA is a steady customer of private companies. Most of NASA's money,
for its large projects like Shuttle and ISS, in fact the vast majority
of its money goes to large companies. I'm not sure what you mean here.

Anyway guys, about the Shuttle and ISS, you don't need to spend any
time developing some strange new launch vehicle, like SSTO or
something. I mean, in cost per kilogram, using the Saturn V would
apparently be better than the Shuttle, if I remember correctly. And we
can certainly do better than that.

In my view we should simply switch back to expendables. There is no
reason to be using the Shuttle. It just makes no sense economically.
Meanwhile we can try developing better options to replace the
expendables.

On 3 Feb 2004 19:29:41 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(Alexander Sheppard) made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

lots of peoples messages snipped

The space shuttle and the ISS don't address this issue. If the US were
serious about manned space exploration, they would help private
industry develope manned vehicles. That's one of the things about the
Bush program. He can get rid of the shuttle and make NASA a steady
customer of private companies rather than a well-funded rival who can
shut down the market for decades.

NASA is a steady customer of private companies. Most of NASA's money,
for its large projects like Shuttle and ISS, in fact the vast majority
of its money goes to large companies. I'm not sure what you mean here.

He means commercial companies, that get money from NASA on something
other than a cost-plus basis.

On 3 Feb 2004 19:29:41 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(Alexander Sheppard) made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

lots of peoples messages snipped

The space shuttle and the ISS don't address this issue. If the US were
serious about manned space exploration, they would help private
industry develope manned vehicles. That's one of the things about the
Bush program. He can get rid of the shuttle and make NASA a steady
customer of private companies rather than a well-funded rival who can
shut down the market for decades.

NASA is a steady customer of private companies. Most of NASA's money,
for its large projects like Shuttle and ISS, in fact the vast majority
of its money goes to large companies. I'm not sure what you mean here.

He means commercial companies, that get money from NASA on something
other than a cost-plus basis.

(Karl Hallowell) wrote in message . com...

What's the most pressing problem in space today? It's not whether or
not two to three people are sitting in the ISS. It's the cost to
launch something (and not just people!) into orbit. The high cost of
space launch inflates everything. It doesn't make economic sense to
launch a million dollar satellite if it costs tens of millions of
dollars to put that into orbit.

The space shuttle and the ISS don't address this issue. If the US were
serious about manned space exploration, they would help private
industry develope manned vehicles. That's one of the things about the
Bush program. He can get rid of the shuttle and make NASA a steady
customer of private companies rather than a well-funded rival who can
shut down the market for decades.


To be fair, OSP was somewhat addressing this issue (and the CEV
could). By being launchable on a variety of launchers, it would have
the potential to create a market. If NASA wants the OSP (CEV) launched
every 3 months, they could put out a tender every three years for 12
launches. The tender would be for a turn-key solution: deliver OSP to
this orbit - we'll deliver OSP to your launch site.

Any bidder who met safety criteria could be judged on price alone. If
NASA were bold enough to award a contract to Ariannespace or Energia,
I bet within six years LM and Boeing would come up with something half
the price of today's launchers.

It would also be likely that companies such as Pioneer would get
increased funding.

A similar approach to cargo launches would allow NASA to exit the
launch market, and act as customer and price driver.

(Karl Hallowell) wrote in message . com...

What's the most pressing problem in space today? It's not whether or
not two to three people are sitting in the ISS. It's the cost to
launch something (and not just people!) into orbit. The high cost of
space launch inflates everything. It doesn't make economic sense to
launch a million dollar satellite if it costs tens of millions of
dollars to put that into orbit.

The space shuttle and the ISS don't address this issue. If the US were
serious about manned space exploration, they would help private
industry develope manned vehicles. That's one of the things about the
Bush program. He can get rid of the shuttle and make NASA a steady
customer of private companies rather than a well-funded rival who can
shut down the market for decades.


To be fair, OSP was somewhat addressing this issue (and the CEV
could). By being launchable on a variety of launchers, it would have
the potential to create a market. If NASA wants the OSP (CEV) launched
every 3 months, they could put out a tender every three years for 12
launches. The tender would be for a turn-key solution: deliver OSP to
this orbit - we'll deliver OSP to your launch site.

Any bidder who met safety criteria could be judged on price alone. If
NASA were bold enough to award a contract to Ariannespace or Energia,
I bet within six years LM and Boeing would come up with something half
the price of today's launchers.

It would also be likely that companies such as Pioneer would get
increased funding.

A similar approach to cargo launches would allow NASA to exit the
launch market, and act as customer and price driver.

Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:

: Ool ) wrote:
: : "Eric Chomko" wrote in message ...
: : Hansel ) wrote:
:

: snip
: : Come on, twenty-five years of using the same old jalopies until the
: : oldest of them all eventually breaks apart means there must be *some*
: : roadblock to progress somewhere...!
:
: Agreed, NASA needs more money to run efficiently.
:


: I'll have to disagree on that point. The last thing that NASA
: needs is more money. It has not used what it has efficiently.
: More money just means more money.

For the sake or argument,let's say that you are right. Why does the DOD
get a pass when it comes to budget and efficiency?

: NASA has *never* operated a large program within it's budget
: and it has never even met it's own internal estimates on cost.

And the Army? They are supposed to blow **** up to maintain their budget.
Explain that to me! Hell, when you do that clearly, then and only then
will I listen to your argument about NASA not needing more money.

Keep this in mind, the DOD spends as much in 2 weeks as NASA does in a
year.

: It does a lot better with smaller, focussed, programs, but it
: still tends to use more money to add more complexity. Case in
: point.. OSP was a straight forward program with a specific technical
: goal. Yet, three separate NASA centers had separate offices specifically
: for that program - and as far as I can tell, none were subservient to
: any of the others. Hardly efficient.

Let the Air Force build it and reserve a few for NASA.

: To get a feel for an organization, you have to look at how it has
: operated in the past. What sections are the most efficient? What
: happened to areas when they recieved a budget increase? What happened
: when budgets decreased? NASA does not fare well in that sort of
: analysis. NASA deliberately lied to congress about the costs of
: developing Shuttle rather than build a Shuttle that they could
: afford to build. NASA completely botched NASP and Space Station
: Freedom on technical issues.

Do you want NASA to be part of the military? I bet if it were you change
your tune. Just my 2 cents...

Eric