Xref: utzoo sci.space:22300 sci.space.shuttle:5878
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!umich!ox.com!itivax!vax3.iti.org!aws
From: aws@vax3.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: space news from June 4 AW&ST
Message-ID: <5485@itivax.iti.org>
Date: 24 Jul 90 17:31:56 GMT
References: <1990Jul23.021414.5126@zoo.toronto.edu>
Sender: news@itivax.iti.org
Reply-To: aws@vax3.iti.org.UUCP (Allen W. Sherzer)
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Lines: 49

In article <1990Jul23.021414.5126@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Letter from Geoffrey Landis observing that the price-tag difference between
>LLNL and NASA Moon/Mars proposals is not primarily the result of technical
>differences, but of different assumptions.  

True but so what? The primary difference between the US space program and
the Soviet space program is also different assumptions.

>First and foremost, the LLNL
>study assumes "generic waiver of procurement regulations", which even the
>contractors estimate would give a factor of 2-3 reduction, plus whatever
>is saved on the government side due to reduced supervision.  

Again, true. This is a major difference which is important. LLNL is willing
to take risks and accept the consequences. NASA is unwilling to assume any
risk at all. I have worked with several government agencies (NASA was not
one of them) and all of them like the FAR's because it keeps their buts
well covered. The fact that LLNL is willing to do what it takes tells 
me that they are focused on accomplishing the task and not building
empires.

>Second, the
>LLNL program is "success oriented", with little subassembly testing
>beforehand and little provision for failure.  

True. However, each component will receive full integration testing.
Test procedures will be just as complete as Apollo. Overall risk for
crew is also about the same as Apollo.

>[Color me skeptical, but
>NASA tends to plan things the same way nowadays... witness the complete
>absence of backup hardware in current space-station plans.]  

The difference is that NASA is doing no integration testing before
final assembly. The Great Exploration allows for ground based testing
of every module.

>LLNL also
>generally assumes zero or very low costs for contractor supervision,
>management, and ground-based R&D.

Again, they are focused on doing the job, not covering their ass. This
is the sort of spirit we need to accomplish this goal.

  Allen
|                          |      In War: Resolution                      |
| Allen W. Sherzer         |      In Defeat: Defiance                     |
|   aws@iti.org            |      In Victory: Magnanimity                 |
|                          |      In Peace: Good Will                     |