I would be willing to bet that Aerojet realizes that they just can't "have/compete" the 5 segment booster,
Quote from: OV-106 on 01/18/2011 12:55 amI would be willing to bet that Aerojet realizes that they just can't "have/compete" the 5 segment booster,It isn't a 5 segment booster,it is an equivalent booster.
I wonder if Aerojet are thinking of something similar to the Titan's giant monolithic solid outriggers
would be willing to bet that Aerojet realizes that they just can't "have/compete" the 5 segment booster, J-2X, or RS-25 designs/contracts. While NASA paid for them "under contract", they are the intellectual property of those companies. No more than Lockheed can build an orbiter for example. Or no more than PWR can build an OME.
Quote from: OV-106 on 01/18/2011 12:55 am would be willing to bet that Aerojet realizes that they just can't "have/compete" the 5 segment booster, J-2X, or RS-25 designs/contracts. While NASA paid for them "under contract", they are the intellectual property of those companies. No more than Lockheed can build an orbiter for example. Or no more than PWR can build an OME. I understand that. The notion of "intellectual property" is being abused as well. It's rather infuriating to me that I can't, in principle, get the drawings and specifications of the RS-25, and start making them in my shed. And yet, I had to pay for them. Worse, I don't even get to benefit from their full use by the agency I trusted to design, build, and use them.Perhaps the "procurement innovations" being soundbitten about have somewhat to do with a more careful and responsible stewardship of the intellectual property that is paid for, owned by, and should properly be accessible to, the taxpayer.
It doesn't mean one cannot see them or have access to them if necessary for doing the job one is assigned.
Quote from: OV-106 on 01/18/2011 03:06 pmIt doesn't mean one cannot see them or have access to them if necessary for doing the job one is assigned.You miss my point. Of course you do, depending on your assignment. But should I hit the $19B Lotto jackpot tomorrow, and wish to "roll my own", I cannot in principle. I'd have to start from F=ma, basically.Maybe I'm whining a bit about this, since it is slightly improbable. Also, I'm asking for an innovation that I would like to see, as would many others. Aerojet can't, in principle, have access to the RS-25 design so as to improve upon it. What if all it takes for improvement is changing the "widget" to a "doo-hickey"? Seriously, most designs can be improved upon by fresh ideas, but design innovation is forbidden under the current contractural environment.The current contracts sound like they were written from the get-go to prevent the design from being copied. This is wrong, in my opinion. The design of the RS-25 should have been accessible to any American or American company, under proper regulation. It is this aspect of the current practice which needs to be changed.
If you built your own engine, took the time to design it, create drawings, specs, etc and other "innovative processes" unique to you to make it work, would you want others to know that?
If someone paid you to make if for them, would you then want them to come in someday, yank it away, and say we're going to give all your work to your competitor to see if they can't improve upon it?
I'm not sure why you are leaping to the conclusion that "innovation" is "forbidden" under some contracting methods.
Quote from: OV-106 on 01/18/2011 03:48 pmIf someone paid you to make if for them, would you then want them to come in someday, yank it away, and say we're going to give all your work to your competitor to see if they can't improve upon it?Generally, either you buy something as a commodity, or you contract for the development of an item.Buying a commodity doesn't imply that you own the design or the associated methods / processes.Paying someone to design and manufacture an item often times does.What you describe where a customer pays a contractor to design/develop an item and then takes the design elsewhere for future builds (and improvements) happens all the time in some industries (including the black aerospace world).QuoteI'm not sure why you are leaping to the conclusion that "innovation" is "forbidden" under some contracting methods.I'm with you here... innovation is alive and well.Just to point it out, merely handing over a design doesn't mean that anyone can make it. Processes and methodologies are often times more difficult to get right than designs. I know of cases where one vendor failed to produce an item given the full design, yet another succeeded - the difference being processes/techniques and the expertise of the workforce.
I find this so incredibly amusing... The legislation was written to effectively make large solids needed in the SLS, on the behalf of ATK. And now another 'solids' manufacturer chimes in that they can do it as well. Classic! Imagine that, allowing multiple contractors to compete for a contract? It used to be the standard operating procedure, but so many STS contractors just expect SLS contracts to just be handed to them. (ATK, PwR, LM, and others)I wish AeroJet the best of luck.
What's amusing about it?
I am baffled by this honestly.If you built your own engine, took the time to design it ... would you want others to know that? If someone paid you to make if for them, would you then want them to come in someday, yank it away, and say we're going to give all your work to your competitor to see if they can't improve upon it?I'm not sure why you are leaping to the conclusion that "innovation" is "forbidden" under some contracting methods.
Why can't the RS-25 be licensed along the lines of the RD-180?
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 01/18/2011 06:52 pmWhy can't the RS-25 be licensed along the lines of the RD-180? Nobody forced the licensing. It was an agreement between the two companies. PWR may not want to license the RS-25.
SpaceX doesn't do solids. I believe OSC does, although quite small ones, and I think it's SpaceDev who make the hybrids for SS2.
*snipped*