Briefs: Orion capsule update; Japan manned space policy

sounds like they are in a pretty tight box
on mass/power issues still.

If i read it correctly they went to a
Phased array system to save weight,
then they discovered the Phased Array
didn't like switching "Hot" from
Ka to S band and vice versa, and then
the line losses of moving KA microwave
signal to the PA was kind of high.

So they are back to a High Gain parabolic antenna, but, i suspect
they will have to cut weight somewhere else to make it work

Posted by anon at 03/06/09 12:12:59

I found this an interesting article. I have no reason to question it accuracy and as such I found while reading it that I wanted to compare the process and initial constraints of the NASA process against the process and initial constraints used by SpaceX.
I kept getting the feeling that a comparison of the development costs associated with each project would speak volumes about the high cost of a government funded approach to development and a privately funded approach to development.
It is yet to be seen if SpaceX could or would let this information out of its bag (no knock to SpaceX from me, really). Armadillo could be the one to give us some incite down the road.
Either way a comparison could quite possible give the common man an idea of why government development is 10 to 100 times more expensive than private.

Personally, I would like to see the tax payer get "x" times the results they are currently getting on "x" more projects. USING the same number of people (this line specifically directed at you congressman)

Posted by Evon at 03/07/09 09:55:07

You don't understand why something the government does is more costly than private industry? Don't get out much, do you? :-) Briefly, anything one person in the government wants to do is overseen from about 30 to literally THOUSANDS of other people. Who are paid.

Let's say that someone in a government agency wants to buy something. We'll call it a paperclip (to protect the culpable). The agency has to decide what it wants that paperclip to do. Dozens if not hundreds of people work up an idea. ($) Then the agency lets a Request for Proposal. It evaluates the 100s of proposals that come in (dozens if not hundreds of people work on this). ($$) Debate merits of each (more people involved). ($$$) Award a contract for a study -- not hardware, just a paper study -- on paperclip design. ($$$$$) Evaluate the results (two years have now passed and thousands of people have reviewed, commented, challenged ("EEW Company could have done it better, we need to award them a second study contract")and evaluated the paperclip ("TUI's award should be reduced because their report didn't exactly follow our formatting rules. Design is okay but they didn't format correctly!"). ($$$$$$$$$) Next, award competing contracts for a paperclip prototype. ($$ etc) Two (or more) years pass by. Every month several people from the agency visit the companies who are making the prototypes, plus the agency people back at headquarters (who have nothing to do with the project but feel they have to be "involved" anyway) who attend the meetings via speakerphone. ($$$$ exponent)
Usually about half-way through this process there's a rearrangement in the agency and all new people, most with no training in paperclip design, didn't want the paperclip to start with and don't quite understand why they would want one anyway, now have oversight of the project. Oh, and they change the project from paperclip to a binderclip. ($$$$ get the picture?)

Now more departments within the agency put in their spoke: "Farkle in Advanced Weirdness wants it to be candy-coated. Wobbly says it's got to be larger. And the Special Applications department requires the binderclip be made from a proprietary material." (That "proprietary material" costs 100 times what the company planned to use, and is not as effective.) And constantly on the fringes: "What makes you think this company can do the design better than in-house? The Advance Design department is challenging the legitimacy of the whole project." (Read: they want the money for their department.)
($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$...)
And so on. If the project isn't canceled outright it might be over in four years with a working prototype. But the agency only wants 20 of them, so the company can't go into production. Each one is hand-made.

During all this time everyone in the agency has to be paid. Every government worker costs money. A lot of money: salary, insurance & benefits, perks, retirement, expenses.

Any small company -- by small I mean two - 70 people -- that runs itself like that quickly dies. Small companies have to budget and scrutinize expenses; government agencies get money no matter what. Small companies remove incompetent or ineffective people. Government keeps them. In government, inefficiency is rewarded, frugality is punished; the opposite of what happens in small companies.

Each of the above examples is true. Only names have been changed.

Posted by Charlie at 03/07/09 11:18:39

reading the TPS decision log was quite
amusing. The materials changed the
core design changed and the landing methods
are still changing.

It's really amusing to see these radical changes in
direction killing the progress.

Posted by anonymous at 03/07/09 14:33:30

Your comment: Name: Website: E-mail:

Enter the string of characters appearing in the picture: Remember Me