Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov!ipsun.larc.nasa.gov!jcburt
From: jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Not solving any problems (was Re: Solving The Shuttles Problems?)
Message-ID: <1990Oct11.143310.18527@abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov>
Date: 11 Oct 90 14:33:10 GMT
References: <5689@mace.cc.purdue.edu> <1990Oct8.031849.27121@loft386.uucp> <5737@mace.cc.purdue.edu>
Sender: news@abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov (USENET File Owner)
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Lines: 41

Just my two cents worth:

When the government contracts for something (Space Shuttle,
Fighters, Tanks, whatever) much of the excessive cost comes
from two areas: 1) the additional level of red-tape needed
to first oversee the operations of the contractor and to second
audit the expense reports (cost overruns) of that contractor, and
2) research and development costs. R&D is a great place to 
generate cost overruns. The contractor can *always* say that the
R&D took longer and cost more than originally anticipated because
in a sense it is true. When breaking new ground or coming up with
a new generation of technology, the R&D is NOT straight forward. 
It is almost impossible to accurately predict how long and how 
expensive it will be to come up with the needed breakthroughs.
There is an old saying that research is 90% perspiration and 
10% inspiration. Its possible to estimate the time and expense
for the perspiration, but impossible to estimate the time and 
expense for the inspiration. But without the inspiration, all
the perspiration is just about worthless. Because of this, 
contractors can basically charge whatever they want for R&D.

A possible solution is to NOT have the contractors do the
R&D work. Have some of the universities or national labs do
the basic research for a particular project. (Basically the 
"think tank" concept.)  Next, have NASA
or the Air Force or Navy or whoever is interested in the project
work with the research lab to develop one or two prototypes
to prove the basic concepts and design. Finally turn the project
over to the contractor to polish the design and mass produce
the (whatever). This way, the government agency gets exactly
what it wants instead of what the contractor thinks it can
get away with. Perhaps have NASA be an intermediate development
agency between the basic research and the aerospace development
efforts of the Navy and Air Force instead of having a duplication
of effort...

again, just my $.02 worth...

John Burton
(jcburt@cs.wm.edu)
(jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov)