Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!mace.cc.purdue.edu!dil
From: dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Perry G Ramsey)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Solving The Shuttles Problems?
Summary: Good in principle, but...
Message-ID: <5689@mace.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 3 Oct 90 17:56:37 GMT
References: <1990Oct1.160100.389@vaxa.strath.ac.uk>
Organization: Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Lines: 62

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.