Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!dg!dg-rtp.dg.com!ahughes From: ahughes@dg-rtp.dg.com (Arch Hughes) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: Solving The Shuttles Problems? Message-ID: <1018@dg.dg.com> Date: 4 Oct 90 13:05:56 GMT References: <1990Oct1.160100.389@vaxa.strath.ac.uk> <5689@mace.cc.purdue.edu> Sender: root@dg.dg.com Reply-To: ahughes@dg-rtp.dg.com (Arch Hughes) Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC Lines: 109 In article <5689@mace.cc.purdue.edu>, dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Perry G Ramsey) writes: |> 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. What is really the trade off that is being proposed here, though? Are you suggesting that the US government buy/rent the facilities to engineer, develop, and produce space shuttles, F15s, surface fleets, tanks, and so on? At what point do you cut it off or draw the line between "make versus buy"? It seems to me that the current system SHOULD promote a more efficient system and serve to engender capitalism. Isn't the biggest force in capitalism a market with lots of money and some need looking to be filled? There is something else wrong that causes contract overruns, poor workmanship, failure to meet contract specifications, and so on. There is also something wrong with tort suits, product liability suits, professional malpractice suits, etc., etc. Perhaps you see a pattern? If not, the one I'm suggesting is that responsibility for ones own actions seems to be leaving our justice system and is being suplanted by responsiblity on the part of parental substitutes. But...moving off of the soapbox (for which I'm sorry but not enough so to back up and delete those lines), I think that its capitalism at its finest to stand up and soak the government for all you can get away with! Isn't that what you try and do with the IRS every April (to the full extent allowed by law)? If you can make a buck legally, make it. (This might not be morale or patriotic, but it is capitalistic.) Fix the government regulations and enforcement systems, not our economic system. Arch Hughes One man's oppinion.