t/Space throws in the towel on CEV

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I applaud T/Space for standing up on their hind legs and saying not no, but hell no<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Hmm. i wonder if they had to change cover sheets on their TPS reports too .. what, they didnt get the memo ? <br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[rogers_buck]

Why didn't they just sub-contract the paperwork to Lock-mart or Boeing. That's all those companies are good for anyway.<br /><br />I used to think these start-ups didn't have a chance, but then it dawned on me that Airbus kicked Boeings but in the commercial airliner market. Airbus! A near quasi-government consortium from the most beurocratic nations on the planet could make a more and market more viable airplanes!<br /><br />I'll now go with the guys in the garage so long as they have the bucks and the talent!

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Why didn't they just sub-contract the paperwork to Lock-mart or Boeing.</font>/i><br /><br />It still sucks up valuable engineering time from your A-team.<br /><br />On a slight tangent, one of the signs in my field that an organization has serious progress and/or profits in their sights is that they stop bidding on government contracts. The government effort is seen as too much of a distraction from the primary goal(s).<br /><br />I can see that being the case with at least Scaled Composites, one of the highest profile members of the t/space team.</i>

 

[tuckerfan]

Let's see t/Space is connected with Rutan, so not only do they have the <i>skills</i> to do the job right, they've got someone intimately familiar with how the paperwork at the government level operates. So for him to throw in the towel, speaks volumes.

 

[cdr6]

Just so they don't take my red swingline stapler!

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Let's see t/Space is connected with Rutan, so not only do they have the skills to do the job right, they've got someone intimately familiar with how the paperwork at the government level operates.</font>/i><br /><br />I have worked/led government R&D contracts for 17 years, and in the last 9 years I have owned my own company in which the majority of our revenue came from government contracts. But I have never led a large integration effort. I would be completely lost if I did.<br /><br />I did bid with SAIC on a semi-large integration contract (nothing like the CEV size, though), and I realized it was an entirely different ball game than what I was used to. For starters, SAIC had an entire building and staff dedicated to writing proposals. The vast bulk of the proposal had nothing to do with technology; it was mainly about management and reporting. As a scientist/technologist, I found it very distasteful (a necessary evil).<br /><br />We did not win the contract. Later I did become friends with the people who did win the contract, and I am thankful we did <b>not</b> win the contract.</i>

 

[steve82]

"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 /><br />Actually, Deming was fairly ambivalent about ISO 9k, I think, and he said flat out that the Malcolm Baldridge award was a disgrace. <br /><br />I believe that the overly pedantic emphasis on processes rather than on things was a direct contributor to the Columbia accident.

 

[rogers_buck]

Nasa gets a lot of its budget from recycling the paper from its contractors. In 2005, they will have enough to fund an entire shuttle non-mission.

 

[crossovermaniac]

Nothing stifles a job more than having to fill out a 30-page report for each and every single nut and bolt going into a spacecraft.

 

[trigged]

Except for those of us working on the project for t/Space! I was part of the Auburn team working on the restraint/seat system and possibly the ECLSS system!! And guess what! This is how I found out! That sucks!<br />Eldon

 

[arobie]

Trigged,<br /><br />I'm sorry to hear that. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br /><br />What company do you work for?

 

[holmec]

This sounds like a classic power play by people who do not want startups in the market. I bet Lockheed and other large aerospace companies just want to keep their monopoly going. <br /><br />Paperwork is probably the precise problem of over spending on projects, where starups have already cut costs, it costs for someone to make reports all the time.<br /><br />Maybe Nasa should make the reports themselves. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>Maybe Nasa should make the reports themselves.</i><p>Maybe someone in NASA needs to stand up and admit that it's insanity of the highest order for NASA to try to be ISO9000 compliant. ISO9000 is meant for suppliers, so that their customers can be sure of quality. NASA is an end user, who exactly is buying NASA hardware?</p>

 

[trigged]

Arobie, <br />Not a company, but as a contract through Auburn University doing research. About 12 of us are finishing up our undergrad degree in Aerospace Engineering. Oh well, our first time in probably a long line of getting laid off... LOL!!! <br />Eldon

 

[trigged]

I have found out the skinny on this. t/Space is not backing out, they are just redefining the way it handles the contract with the help of NASA. t/Space is still doing the work.<br />Eldon

 

[yurkin]

Building one craft that can go sub-orbital twice is one thing. Building a fleet of vehicle that will be the backbone of the manned space program for decades is quite another. It’s the difference between throwing a ball and pitching in the majors.<br /><br />Put together a bunch of small aerospace firms and you’re going to get a small aerospace firm with more paper work. I don’t argue that Nasa really needs to change how they do business. I would not use T/Space backing out of a contract in the face of Boeing/Northrop & Lockheed/Orbital/EADS as evidence of that. <br />

 

[trigged]

Well, t/Space is not backing out. Just contract renegotiations... I guess you could call it that.<br />Eldon

 

[crix]

Are they still attempting to win the CEV contract?

 

[arobie]

Trigged,<br /><br />Very cool, good luck with the Aerospace Engineering degree. That is what I'm going to go for. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Also thanks for the good news. Have fun working on this!

 

[steve82]

"Maybe someone in NASA needs to stand up and admit that it's insanity of the highest order for NASA to try to be ISO9000 compliant."<br /><br />NASA itself, being a government agency, doesn't have to be ISO 9k, what they do is write into their contracts that their contractors must be. When the first group of ISO consultants came into town and looked at one of the service contractors, they said why in hell do you want to be ISO certified, you don't even have a product. But the consultants saw dollar signs and eventually came up with ways to convince contractors they could become ISO compliant. They didn't know beans about aerospace, but would take boilerplates they developed for the chemical industry and toss them toward the contractors as examples of what they were looking for. Contractor management didn't care, they just wanted NASA off their backs about it so they told their QA departments to go make this thing work. Meanwhile, NASA's ulterior motive behind it was to emphasize process compliance over inspections to cut down on the number of QA people they needed to have around. The contractors blew what little training budget they had training their people how to pass audits instead of how to do their jobs. Working processes that were in place would often be watered down to the point of being inconsequential in order to avoid "audit traps". People would be getting bludgeoned with inane metrics reporting requirements instead of going out and working to solve real problems. <br /><br />That being said, I think the time and money wasted on ISO is just plain silly, but isn't the main producer of "paperwork" that people associate with NASA. Much of the "paperwork" associated with NASA is really just system engineering products: Various different levels of requirements that boil down to specifications that have to be reviewed, tracked, and configuration managed just like you'd manage a bunch of software. Everything in the design and implementation of a vehic

 

[trigged]

Crix, <br />As far as I know they are. We are still doing our part and was told that they were impressed. I am hoping that is a good sign. I think that with the desire to privatize most LEO stuff, NASA is really eager to help out a smaller company as much as possible.

 

[trigged]

Arobie, <br />Thanks! You too!<br />Eldon

 

[crix]

Great to hear! Please let us know if you catch wind of any positive developments with your team. And congratulations on getting to work on such a great project!<br />

 

[trailrider]

From what I saw in the Deming tapes (back in 1988), Deming's techniques were more applicable to high-volume production. Maybe, someday, there will be enough spaceships produced to warrant that type of technique. When one is talking about building spaceSHIPS (about the same way submarines or aircraft carriers are built, no two exactly alike), quality must be a part of the mindset of the people involved, from design to build. TQM, etc., IS important where you are turning out thousands or millions of identical bolts, nuts, etc., that go into a single spacecraft.<br /><br />So far as companies backing out of Government business due to all the profit-eating paperwork, I recall that back in the 1970's there was a company producing rubber insulation for the Navy's Poseidon missile rocket motor nozzles. When the Navy issued an RFP to the company for a follow-on "buy", this company decided it wasn't profitable to bid on continuing supplying the stuff. The Navy had to qualify a new vendor, which was NOT easy!<br /><br />NASA will have to modify its paperwork requirements to keep contractors that aren't used to bidding Gubmint contracts, but it won't happen overnight. It may very well be that the "Big Two" will dominate this market...for awhile. But even if the government continues putting roadblocks in the way of private companies, commercial enterprise WILL come into the picture. When that happens, NASA will be forced to change its ways...or the person in "the center seat" will be Chinese or Indian or European, or a consortium of them! If you think this won't happen, look at where Boeing's "monopoly" on commercial airliners is today vis-a-vis Airbus!<br /><br />Those who wish to argue against teaching Darwin in schools had better START teaching industrial/commercial Darwinism...survival of the fittest!<br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Aries! Ad Astra!<br />Trailrider

 

[trigged]

Crix, <br />Thanks! Will do. The seat concept should be finished by mid April.<br />Eldon