REM@IMSSS (Robert Elton Maas, this host known locally only) (01/30/86)
Criminey! Tonight on the news they said it would cost $2E9 and take 5 years to make one (1) new STS orbiter to replace Challanger. I would think that since they already know how to build one (learned 1975-81) and how to test them (learned 1979-1985), they could just hire a lot of additional manpower and put work on a 2-hour shift and do all the tasks in parallel from specs already worked out, using computerized PERT charts to find bottlenecks, and get all the parts for another orbiter built in a year and assembled&tested in another year. Is it really as bad as they say, 5 years minimum, or are they assuming everybody drags their feet about funding but it could be done faster if they really pushed to go into production?
al@vger.UUCP ( Informatix) (01/31/86)
In article <8601300732.AA03494@s1-b.arpa>, REM@IMSSS (Robert Elton Maas, this host known locally only) writes: > Criminey! Tonight on the news they said it would cost $2E9 and take 5 > years to make one (1) new STS orbiter to replace Challanger. I would > think that since they already know how to build one (learned 1975-81) > and how to test them (learned 1979-1985), they could just hire a lot > of additional manpower and put work on a 2-hour shift and do all the > tasks in parallel from specs already worked out, using computerized > PERT charts to find bottlenecks, and get all the parts for another > orbiter built in a year and assembled&tested in another year. There are several problems with speeding up the process much, having to do with the nature of building an orbiter and the nature of the aerospace business. * Hiring a lot of manpower won't necessarily speed things up. Very few people in the unemployment line know anything about building shuttles, and it's a very complex operation. Training is a major issue. * Government procurement takes a minimum of 3 months to buy ANYTHING costing more than a few hundred dollars. Items worth more than a few thousand generally take 6 months to a year, and 18 months is not unheard of. This is for stuff that you just get off the shelf. You can imagine the paperwork involved in procuring a shuttle - completely independent of the actual construction work. I would guess two to three years of PURE PROCUREMENT DELAY in getting another shuttle. After working as a contractor for NASA for almost 7 years, I know of what I speak. * Major aerospace corporations such as Rockwell aren't very efficient. Everything takes a long time and a lot of money - a lot more than it should, but nobody but Rockwell could, realistically, build a new orbiter. Thus, the way Rockwell does things is the way any replacement orbiter would be built and that fact must be factored into the time needed.
elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner) (01/31/86)
As I understand it, the enormous delay and $2E9 price tag for a new shuttle are the result of Rockwell retooling the shuttle assembly line for production of the B-1 bomber. Thus, building a new shuttle means building a new factory or delaying the B-1 and doing two retoolings of the existing facilities. Obviously, the timetable could be accelerated to some extent by spending more money, although in view of the budget balancing push this may be a remote posssibility. Ed Turner astrovax!elt
jrv@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA (James R. Van Zandt) (02/09/86)
> * Government procurement takes a minimum of 3 months to buy ANYTHING > costing more than a few hundred dollars. Items worth more than a few > thousand generally take 6 months to a year, and 18 months is not > unheard of. This is for stuff that you just get off the shelf. You > can imagine the paperwork involved in procuring a shuttle - completely > independent of the actual construction work. I would guess two to > three years of PURE PROCUREMENT DELAY in getting another shuttle. > After working as a contractor for NASA for almost 7 years, I know of > what I speak. I can't disagree with you. The longer I work with the government, the more I wonder...how in &^%$^#@ did we finish the Apollo program so fast? - Jim Van Zandt
eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (02/16/86)
> I can't disagree with you. The longer I work with the government, the > more I wonder...how in &^%$^#@ did we finish the Apollo program so fast? > > - Jim Van Zandt ;-) --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene eugene@ames-nas.ARPA