Has it occurred to anyone else that putting the possibility of solar
power satellites further off into the future will help more ensure money for
the oil industry in the mean-time? Could that be why NASA's budget was cut
by G. W. so NASA was forced into canceling the X-33?
I wonder? Jay S. Huebner at jhuebn@...
Has it occurred to anyone else that putting the possibility of solar
power satellites further off into the future will help more ensure money for
the oil industry in the mean-time? Could that be why NASA's budget was cut
by G. W. so NASA was forced into canceling the X-33?
I wonder? Hardly anyone gets more passionate about SPS (or more impatient for it) than I do. But still, I tend to be very skeptical of these kind of conspiracy-type notions. A few decades back, one might have used the same kind of logic to argue that the makers of home movie film might try to suppress the advancement of magnetic video tape for the consumer market. But the reality is that we buy VHS cassettes that have names like Polaroid and Kodak on them. And by the same token, if we ever do move into an era of SPS, I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of them weren't funded and constructed by Exxon or Chevron. I think the only problem with SPS is that it's outside the imagination of so many. Or alternately, that people's imagination concerning it are charged with fear.
Mike Combs
In a message dated 3/3/01 2:22:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, jhuebn@...
writes:
power satellites further off into the future will help more ensure money for
the oil industry in the mean-time? Could that be why NASA's budget was cut
by G. W. so NASA was forced into canceling the X-33?
I wonder? Jay S. Huebner at jhuebn@... >>
No, not to me. The problem is with Lockheed, their a typical business as
usual areospace government contractor. They lowballed the cost estimate for
the X-33 and won the contract award at the expense of the other contenders
with the expectation that they can have cost overruns later by holding the
completion of the X-33 hostage. The governments priority to build the thing
was not as great as was forseen by Lockheed. The government promised to
contribute X dollars to the X-33 project and they did, Lockheed spent its
part and the only problem is that the X-33 is not finished and behind
schedule. At some point the government has got to ask itself how important is
this project anyway? And the answer was, not very. The shuttle had cost
overruns too, but the priority was greater and the government kept on
shoveling money into it until it finally was built, having been lured by the
promise of frequent access to space. The frequent access did not materialize,
and the operating costs were higher than expected, but the shuttle did fly
eventually. The US Government has got to change the way it does business with
its contractors. The usual method is to lowball the cost estimates and then
have cost overruns, so basically the winner of the contract is the one who
tells the most outrageous lies and lies convincingly. Lockheed made a
credible presentation with lots of gee whiz technology, but it didn't
deliver. Perhaps Lockeed thought that the Government was going to suddenly
cave in and provide the additional funds to complete the project. Well sorry
Charlie, this is not the Manhattan project and Lockheed was testing the
limits and it looks like it found them.
Well Lockheed can still build the X-33 if it wants to, it simply has to
provide for the additional expenses, but it looks like it didn't feel it
would have to and that governmentwas going to come to the rescue. Well not
this time. perhaps in the next round of contract proposals the companies will
give more conservative cost estimates than it did last time. I've never heard
of a cost underrun, and it seems curious that the actual cost always seems to
be higher than the initial estimate. In the future contractors should be
required to eat the cost overruns out of their own profits. I think a contest
should be set up with a prize system. NASA agrees to pay a minimum amount to
each government contractor that puts up an intriguing and credible proposal
and then awards a prize to the contractor that produces an operational system
first, and a prize for the most cost effective space vehicle, these are
awarded after the vehicle has been built and tested.
Tom Kalbfus
fyi, space.com has an article today on Space Power Satellites; c.f.,
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_solarpower_010302.html.
"Combs, Mike"
ssi_list@... ssi_list@...
03/05/01
09:09 AM
Please
respond to
ssi_list
Has it occurred to anyone else that putting the possibility of solar
power satellites further off into the future will help more ensure money
for
the oil industry in the mean-time? Could that be why NASA's budget was
cut
by G. W. so NASA was forced into canceling the X-33?
I wonder?
Hardly anyone gets more passionate about SPS (or more impatient for it)
than I do. But still, I tend to be very skeptical of these kind of
conspiracy-type notions. A few decades back, one might have used the same
kind of logic to argue that the makers of home movie film might try to
suppress the advancement of magnetic video tape for the consumer market.
But the reality is that we buy VHS cassettes that have names like Polaroid
and Kodak on them. And by the same token, if we ever do move into an era
of SPS, I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of them weren't funded and
constructed by Exxon or Chevron.
I think the only problem with SPS is that it's outside the imagination of
so many. Or alternately, that people's imagination concerning it are
charged with fear.
Regards,
Mike Combs
>
> Has it occurred to anyone else that putting the possibility of
solar
> power satellites further off into the future will help more ensure
money for
> the oil industry in the mean-time? Could that be why NASA's budget
was cut
> by G. W. so NASA was forced into canceling the X-33?
> I wonder?
>
> Hardly anyone gets more passionate about SPS (or more impatient for
it) than
> I do. But still, I tend to be very skeptical of these kind of
> conspiracy-type notions. A few decades back, one might have used
the same
> kind of logic to argue that the makers of home movie film might try
to
> suppress the advancement of magnetic video tape for the consumer
market.
> But the reality is that we buy VHS cassettes that have names like
Polaroid
> and Kodak on them. And by the same token, if we ever do move into
an era of
> SPS, I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of them weren't funded
and
> constructed by Exxon or Chevron.
>
> I think the only problem with SPS is that it's outside the
imagination of so
> many. Or alternately, that people's imagination concerning it are
charged
> with fear.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs
companies themselves to invest in SPS. If in-orbit manafacturing
facilities were made available andSPS was demonstrated as cheap and
viable it might catch their interest.
Mark
ThomasKalbfus@... wrote: No, not to me. The problem is with Lockheed, their a typical business as
usual areospace government contractor. They lowballed the cost estimate for
the X-33 and won the contract award at the expense of the other contenders
with the expectation that they can have cost overruns later by holding the
completion of the X-33 hostage.
Mitchell James
mejames@...
http://www.InnerTransit.org>
The Homebase for Web Based Collaborative Engineering
In a message dated 3/5/01 11:11:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mejames@... writes:
bidding on proposals and projects, I wrote a letter to a number of
congressmen trying to get them to consider replacing NASA with a
different system. The current system is totally inept. First of all
they ask for things that don't make sense Then they assign people to
oversee the bid/project that are incompetent. The competent ones don't
ever seem to have any power. Then they change their minds constantly
about what it is they want. Who gets what contract is not at all based
on what is in the proposal. It was a very frustrating experience. I am
always amazed when NASA manages to accomplish anything.
Mitchell James >>
Sometimes if you throw enough money at a problem, that problem will
eventually get solved if not efficiently. Most contractors realize that it is
important to give NASA something for all the money its spending, because they
want additional contracts in the future. NASA was created during the
Eisenhower Administration, but acheived most of its growth during the Kennedy
and Johnson Administrations. The general philosophy of those two
administrations was that the US is a rich country, so therefore it can afford
to spend alot of money to solve societies problems, how it was spend was not
so much of a concern as much as the fact that it did get spent. Spending
money was considered good for the economy because it increased demand which
in turn stimulates production, that it also causes inflation was of little
concern so long as it keeps unemployment down. The bottom line was not
important for government institutions and NASA was one of those institutions
that was created to get Americans to the Moon no matter what. That mindset
has not entirely left NASA, and it shows up in the traditional way NASA used
to do business with its contractors.
Tom Kalbfus