the saturn 5 returns!

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
pond.com...


It amazes me that an organisation as small as SpaceX (less than 2,000
people) can not only design, but build and fly, not one but two launch
vehicles, including all three engines, structures and most of the avionics,
but organisations like Boeing and LockMart can't even do that.



You assume the goal of them is to fly, not spend money.

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Sun, 6 May 2012 21:51:02 -0400, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:

It amazes me that an organisation as small as SpaceX (less than 2,000
people) can not only design, but build and fly, not one but two launch
vehicles, including all three engines, structures and most of the avionics,
but organisations like Boeing and LockMart can't even do that.

You assume the goal of them is to fly, not spend money.

And to make sure that money doesn't go to someone else.

Brian

On 7/05/2012 11:51 AM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
ond.com...


It amazes me that an organisation as small as SpaceX (less than 2,000
people) can not only design, but build and fly, not one but two launch
vehicles, including all three engines, structures and most of the
avionics, but organisations like Boeing and LockMart can't even do that.



You assume the goal of them is to fly, not spend money.


I'm clearly not as sarcastic as you. However, now you've pointed it
out, you may be right (unfortunately).

In article . com,
says...

On 7/05/2012 11:51 AM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
ond.com...


It amazes me that an organisation as small as SpaceX (less than 2,000
people) can not only design, but build and fly, not one but two launch
vehicles, including all three engines, structures and most of the
avionics, but organisations like Boeing and LockMart can't even do that.



You assume the goal of them is to fly, not spend money.


I'm clearly not as sarcastic as you. However, now you've pointed it
out, you may be right (unfortunately).

That's a problem with government run contracts. You pay a price premium
for everything you do. Partly, it's government oversight which causes
costs to go up. Everything has to be documented, reviewed, tested, and
etc. by the government. SpaceX did its development of its launch
vehicles on its own dime (Musk's dime actually) with far less oversight
than if the program were being run by NASA.

This is why some people advocate that NASA should *not* be designing
their own launch vehicle. Instead, they should be buying launches from
the commercial market. Let the commercial market sort out the best and
cheapest way to fly. Competition is one of the keys to successful
capitalism. Unfortunately, many at NASA, and many politicians, are
happy to keep NASA in the launch vehicle business, which smacks of
socialism.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On 7/05/2012 11:51 AM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
ond.com...


It amazes me that an organisation as small as SpaceX (less than 2,000
people) can not only design, but build and fly, not one but two launch
vehicles, including all three engines, structures and most of the
avionics, but organisations like Boeing and LockMart can't even do that.



You assume the goal of them is to fly, not spend money.


I'm clearly not as sarcastic as you. However, now you've pointed it out,
you may be right (unfortunately).


I don't know about sarcastic as much as cynical. ;-)




--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net