Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/27/2010 08:56 pmQuote from: marsavian on 09/27/2010 08:55 pmIt's NASA's job to explore not permanently subsidize industry when they can't find real business models.If it's NASA's job to explore, then why is it developing launch vehicles?None big enough for the job off the shelf. It also did the job very successfully first time round.
Quote from: marsavian on 09/27/2010 08:55 pmIt's NASA's job to explore not permanently subsidize industry when they can't find real business models.If it's NASA's job to explore, then why is it developing launch vehicles?
It's NASA's job to explore not permanently subsidize industry when they can't find real business models.
Quote from: marsavian on 09/27/2010 08:55 pmIt's NASA's job to explore not permanently subsidize industry when they can't find real business models.If it's NASA's job to explore, then why is it developing launch vehicles?EDIT:That it's a so-called "political reality" that it's NASA's job to develop an SDHLV is partially related to the idea that ATK ought to be subsidized.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/27/2010 08:56 pmQuote from: marsavian on 09/27/2010 08:55 pmIt's NASA's job to explore not permanently subsidize industry when they can't find real business models.If it's NASA's job to explore, then why is it developing launch vehicles?EDIT:That it's a so-called "political reality" that it's NASA's job to develop an SDHLV is partially related to the idea that ATK ought to be subsidized.It is not a subsidy when it is a government procurement for the expressed use by the government in some role. Just like technically speaking Lockheed Martin is not "subsidized" for the F-35.When you are talking about commercial, and these companies own their products etc, and NASA is intended to be just a user like anyone else and these companies require NASA funding to "close the business case" then that is a subsidy or if a commercial company seeks NASA funding to expedite, etc then that is a subsidy.
So how many times do these rockets go up when originally scheduled ? It would be a nightmare trying to coordinate so many DoD and NASA launches in an interleaved fashion if there were numerous delays. Thankfully it's not going to happen .
Quote from: OV-106 on 09/27/2010 11:49 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 09/27/2010 08:56 pmQuote from: marsavian on 09/27/2010 08:55 pmIt's NASA's job to explore not permanently subsidize industry when they can't find real business models.If it's NASA's job to explore, then why is it developing launch vehicles?EDIT:That it's a so-called "political reality" that it's NASA's job to develop an SDHLV is partially related to the idea that ATK ought to be subsidized.It is not a subsidy when it is a government procurement for the expressed use by the government in some role. Just like technically speaking Lockheed Martin is not "subsidized" for the F-35.When you are talking about commercial, and these companies own their products etc, and NASA is intended to be just a user like anyone else and these companies require NASA funding to "close the business case" then that is a subsidy or if a commercial company seeks NASA funding to expedite, etc then that is a subsidy. But if it makes fiscal sense for NASA, what's wrong with the idea that it helps the business case for something else close? Isn't that actually a good thing? (Remember, the context for this discussion is HEFT and their exclusion of lots of commercial launches--in other words EELVs or similar--on the basis that it would be an "excessive" number of launches.)Besides, nobody here is saying that, for instance, EELVs are dependent on NASA funding for their existence (they aren't), but extra EELV flights for NASA wouldn't hurt!And finally, the question is: Why are a lot of commercial launches seen as "excessive" in the HEFT review?