5 ms·

> "SLS... its just not going to be a significant player in the future in space..." > Boeing’s Starliner... continues to be delayed. Man, is 'old space' good f

> "SLS... its just not going to be a significant player in the future in space..." > Boeing’s Starliner... continues to be delayed. Man, is 'old space' good for anything? Over breakfast this morning I read the article below about problems from consolidation in defense. After a certain point, aren't these companies supposed to make money building things? Isn't there some will to succeed in the management above the engineers? How much longer will government bureaucrats allow the farce to continue? https://www.ft.com/content/c408c7bd-466a-496b-9889-9f83cc85e813 https://www.ft.com/content/c408c7bd-466a-496b-9889-9f83cc85e...

Retric 5y ago
It’s congress not government bureaucrats that are in charge of the really big ticket items. As such these companies setup manufacturing to be in an optimal set of districts to ensure their success even if it’s inefficient that’s just more pork.
- fsloth 5y ago
  I'm not from USA, but my limited understanding is that the contractors (Boeing etc) work for Nasa, which in turn is guided by congress. And congress does not specify engineering or scientific goals, but how much government funds they want directed to their district. Hence it's broken from the start as a vehicle for engineering progress, but successful if the measure of success is to create jobs and subsidies.
  - wolf550e 5y ago
    Congress mandates specific technical details to force contractor choice and factory location in right district. For example RAC 2 (Saturn V reboot) won the NASA engineering trade off but congress mandated RAC 1 (shuttle tank, engines and boosters but without orbiter) becomes "SLS", to give jobs to shuttle contractors in their districts. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNZx208bw0g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNZx208bw0g
- HPsquared 5y ago
  That's the big difference, these contractors get given the contract with a big pile of restrictions on how they should build the thing, which usually aren't optimal in terms of cost or performance. Commercial companies like SpaceX on the other hand, who are spending their own money (i.e. no strings attached) have much more of a free hand on things like technology choice, architecture and procurement.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    SpaceX is spending plenty of taxpayer money. They have significant contracts from NASA.
    - HPsquared 5y ago
      Starship is funded by profits from other contracts. After fulfilling the other contracts (for launch services on Falcon 9 etc.) that cash is theirs to spend without further strings.
    - WrtCdEvrydy 5y ago
      Right, but the specs don't come from NASA before the thing is built. The thing is built and then shopped to NASA as a possible launch platform.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        NASA absolutely got to set some specifications on the cargo and crew Dragons, and I'd expect there's at least some consideration to their potential requirements and quiet communication with NASA in Starship's design as well. There'll be quite a few specifics on the HLS award variant (which, hilariously, still manages to shoehorn an Orion capsule into the plan, at least for now). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_HLS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_HLS
        taylorfinley 5y ago
        One wonders if that Orion capsule is designed to be interchangeable with some other payload with another function that the US might like to be able to continue to use.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Exactly. This is basically the modern replacement for earmark spending.
- Datenstrom 5y ago
  The number of stories of contractor companies hiding innovation and automation to maintain a higher number of butts in seats is astounding. Never saw it at NASA but otherwise I know someone who automated his job away and that of over a 10 man team, made it a one button solution. When they told their boss the company immediately claimed IP, took the code, hid it away, and it was never seen again. Now my company is innovating in a space where we could similarly eliminate a lot of busy work and unless the product becomes industry standard these contractors wont touch it because they want to maintain the most useless workers on busy work they can. Missaligned incentives.
adolph 5y ago
> aren't these companies supposed to make money building things Making money not building things has a higher ROI.

Retric 5y ago

It’s congress not government bureaucrats that are in charge of the really big ticket items. As such these companies setup manufacturing to be in an optimal set of districts to ensure their success even if it’s inefficient that’s just more pork.

fsloth 5y ago
I'm not from USA, but my limited understanding is that the contractors (Boeing etc) work for Nasa, which in turn is guided by congress. And congress does not specify engineering or scientific goals, but how much government funds they want directed to their district. Hence it's broken from the start as a vehicle for engineering progress, but successful if the measure of success is to create jobs and subsidies.
- wolf550e 5y ago
  Congress mandates specific technical details to force contractor choice and factory location in right district. For example RAC 2 (Saturn V reboot) won the NASA engineering trade off but congress mandated RAC 1 (shuttle tank, engines and boosters but without orbiter) becomes "SLS", to give jobs to shuttle contractors in their districts. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNZx208bw0g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNZx208bw0g
HPsquared 5y ago
That's the big difference, these contractors get given the contract with a big pile of restrictions on how they should build the thing, which usually aren't optimal in terms of cost or performance. Commercial companies like SpaceX on the other hand, who are spending their own money (i.e. no strings attached) have much more of a free hand on things like technology choice, architecture and procurement.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  SpaceX is spending plenty of taxpayer money. They have significant contracts from NASA.
  - HPsquared 5y ago
    Starship is funded by profits from other contracts. After fulfilling the other contracts (for launch services on Falcon 9 etc.) that cash is theirs to spend without further strings.
  - WrtCdEvrydy 5y ago
    Right, but the specs don't come from NASA before the thing is built. The thing is built and then shopped to NASA as a possible launch platform.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      NASA absolutely got to set some specifications on the cargo and crew Dragons, and I'd expect there's at least some consideration to their potential requirements and quiet communication with NASA in Starship's design as well. There'll be quite a few specifics on the HLS award variant (which, hilariously, still manages to shoehorn an Orion capsule into the plan, at least for now). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_HLS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_HLS
      - taylorfinley 5y ago
        One wonders if that Orion capsule is designed to be interchangeable with some other payload with another function that the US might like to be able to continue to use.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Exactly. This is basically the modern replacement for earmark spending.
Datenstrom 5y ago
The number of stories of contractor companies hiding innovation and automation to maintain a higher number of butts in seats is astounding. Never saw it at NASA but otherwise I know someone who automated his job away and that of over a 10 man team, made it a one button solution. When they told their boss the company immediately claimed IP, took the code, hid it away, and it was never seen again. Now my company is innovating in a space where we could similarly eliminate a lot of busy work and unless the product becomes industry standard these contractors wont touch it because they want to maintain the most useless workers on busy work they can. Missaligned incentives.

adolph 5y ago

> aren't these companies supposed to make money building things Making money not building things has a higher ROI.