cadp13@vaxa.strath.ac.uk (10/01/90)
Okay, heres my $0.02 worth..... I reckon that nearly all the problems of the space shuttle program could be wiped out overnight (nearly) by changing the whole concept of operation. take the following as an example: All the work necessary for the launch of a Space Shuttle, from the construction of the first frame section right through to painting the rather natty decals on the outside is contracted out. Financially, this is good. unfortunately this isn't just a financial world. IF, instead of contracting, NASA were to employ people, whose SOLE concern was to get the crew up and down again safely, rather than the ever present bottom line, it would lead to a safer, more efficient launch system (and we might finally get this space station off the ground :)) PS > this might sound a little old fashioned, even socialist, but I'm afraid that when it comes to space exploration, politics is just not of any concern. Ian aka Theora Jones CADP13@uk.ac.strath.vaxa (and how you get it to JANET, is up to you!) "PER ARDVA, AD ASTRA" Strathclyde University Crazy Curran Crew 1990-91
dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Perry G Ramsey) (10/04/90)
In article <1990Oct1.160100.389@vaxa.strath.ac.uk>, cadp13@vaxa.strath.ac.uk writes: > IF, instead of contracting, > NASA were to employ people, whose SOLE concern was to get the crew up and down > again safely, rather than the ever present bottom line, it would lead to a > safer, more efficient launch system (and we might finally get this space > station off the ground :)) Essentially, I agree. It makes sense to buy things already made from contractors if they are things that the contractor already makes: sugar wire desktop personal computers or things that are close derivatives of things that the contractor already makes Jeeps from car companies custom integrated circuits from people who make IC's. It doesn't make sense to buy custom made and designed things from outside vendors when the outside vendors have no real expertise at making these things, except the expertise that they gained from the last contracting job. The whole job of making specialized things could be moved in-house, and you could leave out a whole lot of bureaucratic tangle of people looking over the shoulders of people looking over other people's shoulders. In most cases, the contractors in the US don't even own their own plant or furniture. It's all paid for by the government anyway. The contractor is essentially bringing nothing to the deal, except that they know how to deal with government paperwork. There is, in fact, an entire class of company, disparagingly known as the "Beltway Bandit" (in reference to the fact that many are located on the highway which surrounds Washington, DC, the "Capitol Beltway") which essentially does nothing but hire people who work under the direction of the Government. There's one real problem. It is virtually impossible to hire competent technical personnel at the salaries the Government offers. The contractor salaries typically run 20-30% higher that their NASA counterparts. At the top of the organization it's much worse. The current contractor arrangement exists to skirt around Civil Service regulations. Without a major overhaul of Government hiring (and firing) policy, there's no real hope of your suggestion being implemented. I think it's the right approach, though. > > PS > this might sound a little old fashioned, even socialist, but I'm afraid > that when it comes to space exploration, politics is just not of any concern. > I am a redneck right winger of strong credentials. My objection to the current situation is that it corrupts capitalism. It's not free enterprise when the government pays for everything and absorbs all the risk, and the contractor makes a profit from it. It's all the problems of socialism (sloth, inefficiency) with all the problems of capitalism (rich people get richer for doing nothing.) -- Perry G. Ramsey Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences perryr@vm.cc.purdue.edu Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN USA dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu We've looked at clouds from ten sides now, And we REALLY don't know clouds, at all.
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/04/90)
In article <1990Oct1.160100.389@vaxa.strath.ac.uk> cadp13@vaxa.strath.ac.uk writes: > All the work necessary for the launch of a Space Shuttle, from the >construction of the first frame section right through to painting the rather >natty decals on the outside is contracted out. Financially, this is good. No, financially it is bad, actually. Doing it in-house usually costs less. There are also quality implications. Under Wernher von Braun, the first few copies of every rocket were built in Huntsville, not at a contractor plant, with gradual transition to contractors when production started. (For the Saturn I, they didn't even pick the contractor until after the first flight.) Most everyone involved felt that NASA was better off with its own in-house engineering facilities, so it wasn't forced to rely on contractors for everything. This attitude was very unpopular with the contractors. Marshall's in-house engineering got the axe, pretty much completely, in the post-Apollo cutbacks. >... IF, instead of contracting, >NASA were to employ people, whose SOLE concern was to get the crew up and down >again safely, rather than the ever present bottom line, it would lead to a >safer, more efficient launch system ... Congress will not let you ignore the bottom line. Sensibly so, too. There is *no limit* to how much you can spend making the hardware just a tiny bit safer. Perfect safety is an illusion, but the law of diminishing returns is not. There comes a time when you have to decide that it's safe enough and it's time to fly. "For perfect safety... sit on a fence and watch the birds." -Wilbur Wright. -- Imagine life with OS/360 the standard | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology operating system. Now think about X. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
ahughes@dg-rtp.dg.com (Arch Hughes) (10/04/90)
In article <5689@mace.cc.purdue.edu>, dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Perry G Ramsey) writes: |> In article <1990Oct1.160100.389@vaxa.strath.ac.uk>, cadp13@vaxa.strath.ac.uk writes: |> > IF, instead of contracting, |> > NASA were to employ people, whose SOLE concern was to get the crew up and down |> > again safely, rather than the ever present bottom line, it would lead to a |> > safer, more efficient launch system (and we might finally get this space |> > station off the ground :)) |> |> Essentially, I agree. It makes sense to buy things already made from |> contractors if they are things that the contractor already makes: |> |> sugar |> wire |> desktop personal computers |> |> or things that are close derivatives of things that the contractor already |> makes |> |> Jeeps from car companies |> custom integrated circuits from people who make IC's. |> |> It doesn't make sense to buy custom made and designed things from outside |> vendors when the outside vendors have no real expertise at making |> these things, except the expertise that they gained from the last |> contracting job. The whole job of making specialized things could |> be moved in-house, and you could leave out a whole lot of bureaucratic |> tangle of people looking over the shoulders of people looking over |> other people's shoulders. In most cases, the contractors in the |> US don't even own their own plant or furniture. It's all paid for |> by the government anyway. The contractor is essentially bringing |> nothing to the deal, except that they know how to deal with |> government paperwork. There is, in fact, an entire class of |> company, disparagingly known as the "Beltway Bandit" (in reference |> to the fact that many are located on the highway which surrounds |> Washington, DC, the "Capitol Beltway") which essentially does nothing |> but hire people who work under the direction of the Government. |> |> There's one real problem. It is virtually impossible to hire |> competent technical personnel at the salaries the Government |> offers. The contractor salaries typically run 20-30% higher |> that their NASA counterparts. At the top of the organization |> it's much worse. The current contractor arrangement exists |> to skirt around Civil Service regulations. Without a major |> overhaul of Government hiring (and firing) policy, there's |> no real hope of your suggestion being implemented. |> |> I think it's the right approach, though. |> > |> > PS > this might sound a little old fashioned, even socialist, but I'm afraid |> > that when it comes to space exploration, politics is just not of any concern. |> > |> I am a redneck right winger of strong credentials. My objection to the |> current situation is that it corrupts capitalism. It's not free |> enterprise when the government pays for everything and absorbs all the |> risk, and the contractor makes a profit from it. It's all the |> problems of socialism (sloth, inefficiency) with all the problems |> of capitalism (rich people get richer for doing nothing.) |> |> -- |> Perry G. Ramsey Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences |> perryr@vm.cc.purdue.edu Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN USA |> dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu We've looked at clouds from ten sides now, |> And we REALLY don't know clouds, at all. What is really the trade off that is being proposed here, though? Are you suggesting that the US government buy/rent the facilities to engineer, develop, and produce space shuttles, F15s, surface fleets, tanks, and so on? At what point do you cut it off or draw the line between "make versus buy"? It seems to me that the current system SHOULD promote a more efficient system and serve to engender capitalism. Isn't the biggest force in capitalism a market with lots of money and some need looking to be filled? There is something else wrong that causes contract overruns, poor workmanship, failure to meet contract specifications, and so on. There is also something wrong with tort suits, product liability suits, professional malpractice suits, etc., etc. Perhaps you see a pattern? If not, the one I'm suggesting is that responsibility for ones own actions seems to be leaving our justice system and is being suplanted by responsiblity on the part of parental substitutes. But...moving off of the soapbox (for which I'm sorry but not enough so to back up and delete those lines), I think that its capitalism at its finest to stand up and soak the government for all you can get away with! Isn't that what you try and do with the IRS every April (to the full extent allowed by law)? If you can make a buck legally, make it. (This might not be morale or patriotic, but it is capitalistic.) Fix the government regulations and enforcement systems, not our economic system. Arch Hughes One man's oppinion.
dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Perry G Ramsey) (10/05/90)
In article <1018@dg.dg.com>, ahughes@dg-rtp.dg.com (Arch Hughes) writes: > What is really the trade off that is being proposed here, > though? Are you suggesting that the US government buy/rent > the facilities to engineer, develop, and produce space > shuttles, F15s, surface fleets, tanks, and so on? At what > point do you cut it off or draw the line between "make versus > buy"? In most cases, the Federal Government already owns the plant which is being occupied by the contractor. Drive by the General Dynamics plant in Ft. Worth. It says Air Force Plant No. 6. Drive by the Palmdale, CA plant where Lockheed, Rockwell, and others build stuff for the Gov. It says Air Force Plant No. 42. I have worked at three contractor facilities. Two were leased, and the lease was paid by the government, and the other (Rockwell/Downey) was Government owned. Where do you cut it off? It's a judgement call, but it seems clear to me that military aircraft programs (with the exception of transports which are similar to commercial transports) are cases of the Government providing everything and the stockholders getting a profit. > It seems to me that the current system SHOULD promote a more > efficient system and serve to engender capitalism. Isn't the > biggest force in capitalism a market with lots of money and > some need looking to be filled? It is if there are proper competitive methods. The only real competition in the current system is to get the contract in the first place, so the proper policy is to underbid everybody and then stick it to the customer. Which is exactly what they do. As you mention below, they're just responding to the environment which they have been put in. I don't consider the contractors basically dishonest, but they operate in an environment which fosters fudging the truth. > > I think that its capitalism at its finest > to stand up and soak the government for all you can get away > with! Well, I'm not so sure about this. Dishonesty and mistrust are not good for any society. In principle the dishonest operator eventually gets his due, but in the mean time it disrupts the system. It's really a problem when you have a customer who can't go broke. > Fix the government regulations and > enforcement systems, not our economic system. So we agree here? > > Arch Hughes > One man's oppinion. And one more man's opinion. -- Perry G. Ramsey Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences perryr@vm.cc.purdue.edu Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN USA dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu We've looked at clouds from ten sides now, And we REALLY don't know clouds, at all.
ahughes@dg-rtp.dg.com (Arch Hughes) (10/08/90)
In article <5700@mace.cc.purdue.edu>, dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Perry G Ramsey) writes: |> In article <1018@dg.dg.com>, ahughes@dg-rtp.dg.com (Arch Hughes) writes: |> > What is really the trade off that is being proposed here, |> > though? Are you suggesting that the US government buy/rent |> > the facilities to engineer, develop, and produce space |> > shuttles, F15s, surface fleets, tanks, and so on? At what |> > point do you cut it off or draw the line between "make versus |> > buy"? |> |> In most cases, the Federal Government already owns the plant which is |> being occupied by the contractor. Drive by the General Dynamics |> plant in Ft. Worth. It says Air Force Plant No. 6. Drive by |> the Palmdale, CA plant where Lockheed, Rockwell, and others |> build stuff for the Gov. It says Air Force Plant No. 42. I have |> worked at three contractor facilities. Two were leased, and the |> lease was paid by the government, and the other (Rockwell/Downey) |> was Government owned. |> |> Where do you cut it off? It's a judgement call, but it seems clear |> to me that military aircraft programs (with the exception of |> transports which are similar to commercial transports) are cases |> of the Government providing everything and the stockholders getting a profit. |> |> > It seems to me that the current system SHOULD promote a more |> > efficient system and serve to engender capitalism. Isn't the |> > biggest force in capitalism a market with lots of money and |> > some need looking to be filled? |> |> It is if there are proper competitive methods. The only real competition |> in the current system is to get the contract in the first place, |> so the proper policy is to underbid everybody and then stick it |> to the customer. Which is exactly what they do. As you mention |> below, they're just responding to the environment which they |> have been put in. I don't consider the contractors basically |> dishonest, but they operate in an environment which fosters fudging the truth. |> |> > |> > I think that its capitalism at its finest |> > to stand up and soak the government for all you can get away |> > with! |> Well, I'm not so sure about this. Dishonesty and mistrust |> are not good for any society. In principle the dishonest |> operator eventually gets his due, but in the mean time it |> disrupts the system. |> |> It's really a problem when you have a customer who can't go |> broke. |> |> > Fix the government regulations and |> > enforcement systems, not our economic system. |> |> So we agree here? |> |> > |> > Arch Hughes |> > One man's oppinion. |> |> And one more man's opinion. |> |> -- |> Perry G. Ramsey Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences |> perryr@vm.cc.purdue.edu Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN USA |> dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu We've looked at clouds from ten sides now, |> And we REALLY don't know clouds, at all. Case in point. I own (along with certain lending institutions 8-)) a house. I am having it painted. Before starting, I contacted 3 local painters and got information on methods and price. I selected one. I supply the facilities (my house), and some of the equipment (the paint...they bring ladders, brushes, and solvents). They supply labor, expertise that I don't have, and some specialty tools (mentioned above). What's the risk? The price might not be fair. They might screw up the job. The paint may not be the color I want. The task might not have been well defined as I might also want my deck painted. They might hurt themselves. I might not pay them. They might engage in fraud by not putting the second coat on all the way around or by not washing out some mildew as they said they would. Sounds a lot like a government contract to me! I only hope I've made a good choice and I monitor their progress as they go to satisfy myself with their part of the deal. If I don't like the job or otherwise refuse to pay, barring a fist fight, we go to court to settle the difference. I believe through the selection process that they price is fair, that the methods are appropriate, and that they painters are basically trustworthy. Only time will tell if I am wrong. Naturally, the color is not exactly what we wanted! Why does government contracting break down? If the contractors are not fair or honest, one lesson should teach the government this. If the government specs are not clear, better specs should be written next time or room for definition left in the contract. However, if the government shows by action or inaction that it doesn't care, the door for abuse is left open. Though perhaps below the highest morale standards, such an open door will be walked through and advantage taken within the bounds of the law. We may be offended by this, but you can't punish children for eating candy left lying about when you haven't restricted them from doing so. If someone came to my house and wanted to pay $8000 for my Mr. Coffee, I'd sure part with it! Arch Hughes