t/Space throws in the towel on CEV

[no_way]

<br />due to excessive documentation requirements .. 40-50 reports a month .. well .. duh<br /><br />http://www.newscientist.com/channel/space/mg18524903.900<br /><br />Active discussions over at:<br />http://www.space-frontier.org/cgi-bin/BBS/MoonBase/read/13710<br /><br />http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/004964.html#004964<br /><br />

 

[spacester]

(I know people hate to see politics on M&L but IMO it's very relevant in this case)<br /><br />So how can this be? I thought the current POTUS was the champion of space flight and the old way of pork barrel politics and NIH syndrome was a thing of the past!<br /><br />This program is already showing signs of going the way of SLI and every other program we've seen over the last decade: lots of talk, lots of pork, but the inmates are still running the asylum.<br /><br />The message: feel free to innovate, but don't upset the powers that be, the gravy train must go on. Do wonderful new things, but don't you dare try to change the system. Which of course is impossible because the system is the problem.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yurkin]

<font color="yellow"> say they can build a great spaceship, they don't have the expertise or resources to do all the paperwork.</font><br /><br />So let me get this straight. They can build a space ship, but they can’t do the paperwork? Am I the only one that’s a little skeptical of this?<br /><br />They were bound to fail from the get go. A start up company has no chance of competing with a massive aerospace company for so a major contract. Not without a ton of cash to back them up.<br />

 

[crix]

Way to go NASA! Way to crush innovation with excessive bureaucratic requirements!<br /><br />

 

[shyningnight]

<So let me get this straight. They can build a space ship, but they can’t do the paperwork?><br /><br />I've known several machinists... Excellent machinists. Give them a part-print and they'll turn out the part. They'll do the work fast, efficiently, and come out with a part that is on-spec. <br />Now.. ask those same guys to write 40-50 professionally done reports, with stuff spelled right, the kind of charts that NASA probably expects, etc?<br />You'll hear "screw this... I quit.." and they'll go work at a different machine shop.<br /><br />So to answer your question, you may not be the ONLY one skeptical of that.. but I for one wouldn't rule it out.<br /><br />Paul F.

 

[mrmorris]

I'm suprised t/Space backed out this quick, but the outcome has never been in any doubt in my mind. Boeing And Lockmart will be the two contenders for the CEV. I cannot see NASA telling one or the other to take a hike while they take a chance on the new kid. Had the fly-off been between three companies rather than two -- then the open competetion for the two slots would have been less of a charade. As is -- anyone except LM&B is just spinning their wheels.

 

[wvbraun]

"So how can this be? I thought the current POTUS was the champion of space flight and the old way of pork barrel politics and NIH syndrome was a thing of the past!"<br /><br />Yes, this is bad news but you can hardly blame Bush for this, he is not responsible for the way NASA runs its day to day operations. Anyway, although t/space getting the CEV contract would have been just great (that's an understatement) it was unlikely from the start. NASA is changing but it will take time before they're ready to break so radically with the old ways of doing business..<br />Gump has indicated that he still hopes his company will be able to build a cheap Earth-to-LEO system for NASA...

 

[spacester]

I'm still waiting for dubya to take responsibility for <i>something</i>. Instead all I get is apologies from his supporters. It's amazing to see people support someone who isn't responsible for <i>anything</i> that happens under his watch. He doesn't even have to make his own excuses any more, there's always somebody ready to step in and explain once again why the POTUS isn't responsible for anything at all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

So you're saying that Bush should tell NASA to give one of the contracts to a small start-up company, no matter what? Wouldn't that be illegal?

 

[nacnud]

Why does NASA need to care about paperwork?<br /><br />OK I know that NASA need to be accountable and to be honest it is a flippant question but maybe it is time for two space programs. Keep the traditional companies in business by giving them goals and paying what it costs to get the mission done. However why not pay for non mission critical hardware or supplies on a $ to destination approach? <br /><br />Drive innovation and still get assurance that the money is spent well.<br /><br />Am I talking drivel or does this made sense?<br />

 

[shyningnight]

<He doesn't even have to make his own excuses any more, there's always somebody ready to step in and explain once again why the POTUS isn't responsible for anything at all.<br /><br />Just like there was never a shortage of people defending anything and everything Clinton did during HIS two terms.<br /><br />It's a two party system. They don't like each other. Get over it.<br /><br /><br />Paul F.

 

[spacester]

<i>Just like there was never a shortage of people defending anything and everything Clinton did during HIS two terms. </i><br /><br />Yup. But I'm not gonna get over it. It's the death of our republic in front of our eyes and that's not something I'll dismiss lightly.<br /><br />All that talk from the gop about slick willy demeaning the office of the POTUS, and now they've got a guy who takes no responsibility for anything, and they adore him without reservation. Go figure. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shyningnight]

And I, and many millions of others, would counter than the previous administration was the most damaging to our Republic in American History (and I say this as someone who voted for him the first time...)<br />And we are right back where we started.... <br />Embattling and embittering about something that has NOTHING to do with the topic.<br />For what? The sake of your hatred?<br /><br />I found this board hoping to leave that kind of *&#%@ behind and talk about space (and BTW, I love your Mars thread!).<br /><br />Paul F.

 

[spacester]

wvb: No, that's not what I'm saying.<br /><br />I'll let you guys have the last word except to say I'm not going to keep talking politics here. I said my piece. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

"I'll let you guys have the last word except to say I'm not going to keep talking politics here."<br /><br />Then why do you continue to bring up politics in M&L in the first place? Just curious.

 

[spacester]

Because IMO one of the primary reasons for the lack of Missions and Launches is politics.<br /><br />In other words because I think it's relevant and sometimes even the 500 pound gorilla that no one wants to talk about.<br /><br />But we can't seem to talk politics without partisan bickering and I've had more than enough of that. <br /><br />BTW, wvb, nice tag line . . . you can talk politics in every post that way and not have to apologize. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />(Not just for wvb) Has it ever occured to you that the reason America is so polarized is because that's the way the PTB want it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shyningnight]

One of the troubles with that argument is that you would (probably) identify one group as the "powers that be" and I and others would identify another.<br /><br />I apologise if anyone takes offense that a relative "noob" here (me) is voicing against political speech here... like you, I've had far too much partisan bickering (other forums). I'm happy to debate such things in person, but they get downright NASTY on the 'net.<br /><br />Paul F.

 

[spacester]

t/Space was way too good to be true. They were the only ones to "get it" in terms of applying the thinking of a diverse group of stakeholders towards the task of breaking the bulwark of NIH syndrome at NASA.<br /><br />Thankfully, it looks like they've found somebody crazy enough yet qualified enough to run NASA and lo and behold he is one of the few guys who also "gets it".<br /><br />I have huge respect for APL at Johns Hopkins' contributions to space flight.<br /><br />OK, I'll give some credit to dubya (it spite of my alleged hate for him <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> ): it appears they ended up getting a good guy for the job.<br /><br />Still, why did it take so long to decide he was acceptable? I'm guessing his politics didn't measure up to dubya's handler's political litmus tests and loyalty tests. But finally, since they had to get the post filled . . . <br /><br />Hey, welcome aboard, Shyningnight! I rarely indulge in politics on M & L. wvb and I have a discussion going that goes back a while, and I just couldn't resist. <br /><br />(Usually, I keep my politics to free space using my alter-alter-ego, ActivistModerate ) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Going back to the SR-71 project...</font>/i><br /><br />Neat story!</i>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Paperwork, again? Just the other week the Space Shuttle guys said that their biggest issue now ahead of a scheduled return to flight was..........<br /><br />.......yep, you guessed it. Paperwork.

 

[bobvanx]

>With the paperwork... the SR-71 was able to be built.<br /><br />I think nearly every innovating contractor keeps at least this level of records. The kind of reporting and CYA paperwork that has blossomed in the last 30 years for NASA contractors is certainly much less focussed.<br /><br />It also explains some of why it's expensive: the contractor has to pay a team of someones to be generating those reports.

 

[spacester]

40 to 50 reports a month? That's what the gummint does when they want you to quit a program. I've seen it. If they have a legal obligation to a program but they need to cut it, they just paperwork it to death.<br /><br />This is a clear signal IMO that the PTB want no part of this new-fangled innovative space stuff at this point in time. The gravy train is scheduled to last another 3 years minimum. To the victors go the spoils. <br /><br />Then again, Griffin looks pretty good, maybe I'll be proven wrong and NASA will find a way to let the new players play.<br /><br />The SR-71 story is a good one, but that was in a different era before this cost plus game got so ridiculous. How much paperwork does SpaceX do? They'd have those material records, but 40 - 50 reports a month? (Actually the material verification would be much easier these days, those systems are in place at ISO 9000 companies and others.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"It also explains some of why it's expensive: the contractor has to pay a team of someones to be generating those reports. "</font><br /><br />Your post just made me think of it. t/Space should've hired me <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. My specialty is databases (Oracle in particular) and reporting. I've worked on projects designed to automagically take standard operation data from daily activities logged to the DB, combine data from several different input sources, massage them, then spit out reports that are 80-100% finished -- complete with graphs, bar charts, Gannt charts, and analyses. Perfect for that Senior VP who wants to have a hefty document in hand to show that the people under his control are "doing something".<br /><br />Music make soothe the savage beast, but charts with lots of colors is what does the trick for VPs and bureaucrats.

 

[cdr6]

Spacester, as Graucho Marks once said, "Congratulations, you just said the magic woid"....ISO9000. <br /><br />That and it's "quality" brotheren are the problem. NASA does ISO, Quality Circles, etc-etc. add nausium. They are costly, inefficent, report generators. (Only good for deforesting small South American countries.) The Malcom Baldridge Quality Award (another of the evil quality brothern) has driven a majority of it's recipents bankrupt. <br /><br />The great god Demming, and his followers are the cause of this morass which NASA and the aerospace companies find them selves in, not the politicians. (I never thought I'd hear myself say that.) <br /><br />Under ISO, normal engineering/management/production cycle is disrupted by placing the QA/QC department in the driver's seat. Not overtly of course, but it happens, the Bell-Boeing V22 is a case in point. "Those two companies have every quality program in existance, and the aircraft program is a mess," as one politician at the V22 congressional investigation said. "Explain to me just how did this happen?"<br /><br />When you approach your favorite Quality Consultant and ask about how much all this runs... He will inveriably mumble something about "the cost of quality." <br /><br />Maintaing the files, paper work, doing the audits, in briefs, exit briefs, internal survailance autits and so on cost big bucks. The bigger the endeavor the bigger the cost. Add to that the burden, the employees who are forced to do this junk, have to do it on top of their normal work load. They are pulled from their real job (the one they are hired to do) and given classes by the local external consultant, at "X" number of thousands of dollars a pop. <br /><br />One aerospace company I worked for, got suckered for just over 4 million bucks for a hand full of management classes and a box full of three ring binders. I hear from friends that most of the managers in those classes are gone from the company, and things are still a mess. <br /><br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">due to excessive documentation requirements .. 40-50 reports a month</font>/i><br /><br />Looks like a good time for the Wernher von Braun quote:<br /><br />"<i>We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming.</i>"</i>