Author Topic: Aerojet wants contracts for new rocket to be competed  (Read 56602 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Aerojet wants contracts for new rocket to be competed
« Reply #40 on: 01/18/2011 11:11 am »
I 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.

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Aerojet wants contracts for new rocket to be competed
« Reply #41 on: 01/18/2011 11:21 am »
I 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.
   ASRM was a 3-seg design, no? Looks like it would have been about halfway in performance between RSRM and RSRMV.
    But you have to wonder about what they're thinking about domestic NK-33 (and NK-43, and TAN, and ...)
          -Alex

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Aerojet wants contracts for new rocket to be competed
« Reply #42 on: 01/18/2011 11:22 am »
I 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 or whether they are thinking of multiple smaller units (maybe four or even six more modest motors).
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Aerojet wants contracts for new rocket to be competed
« Reply #43 on: 01/18/2011 11:24 am »

I wonder if Aerojet are thinking of something similar to the Titan's giant monolithic solid outriggers

They were segmented

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Aerojet wants contracts for new rocket to be competed
« Reply #44 on: 01/18/2011 02:20 pm »
I 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.

Jim, all I can go off of, as well as you, are the various news reports.  Clearly this article states the "5 segment solid" as well as various other engine components by name.

I agree it would be an "equivalent" design, which of course was exactly my point, rendering all previous work and investment irrelevant. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Aerojet wants contracts for new rocket to be competed
« Reply #45 on: 01/18/2011 02:53 pm »
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.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Aerojet wants contracts for new rocket to be competed
« Reply #46 on: 01/18/2011 03:06 pm »
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.  The only time that comes up is if a part or process is declared as "proprietary", and even then it can be done if necessary and certain agreements are in place.  This is also the case and common with sub-tier vendors who are under contract to the Prime.  It's the nature of business and designed that way out of competition and protecting the interests of that company.  Perfectly valid if you ask me.  For example, do you think SpaceX would want ULA to have access to its drawings and specs, or vice versa?

For those reasons, it doesn't mean "it" can just be given to some other company to build and manufacture after another company has designed it. 
« Last Edit: 01/18/2011 03:12 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Aerojet wants contracts for new rocket to be competed
« Reply #47 on: 01/18/2011 03:40 pm »
It 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.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Aerojet wants contracts for new rocket to be competed
« Reply #48 on: 01/18/2011 03:48 pm »
It 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.

I am baffled by this honestly.

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.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline jimvela

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1662
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Aerojet wants contracts for new rocket to be competed
« Reply #49 on: 01/18/2011 04:07 pm »
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? 

On your own money, or corp IR&D money, no.

Quote
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?

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).

Quote
I'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.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Aerojet wants contracts for new rocket to be competed
« Reply #50 on: 01/18/2011 04:24 pm »
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?

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).

Quote
I'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.

Commodities and designs are two different things.  If someone pays someone to design something but says someone else may manufacture it, or at least it is a possibility, is generally known ahead of time. 

That company is likely not going to design it with certain "innovations" that could then be, as a consequence of someone else manufacturing it to their drawings and specs, disclosed to other corporations or competitors.  There is also likely a "leasing payment" or something of that nature involved if that is to happen.  If that is economically viable likely is situation dependent. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Aerojet wants contracts for new rocket to be competed
« Reply #51 on: 01/18/2011 04:29 pm »
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.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Aerojet wants contracts for new rocket to be competed
« Reply #52 on: 01/18/2011 04:35 pm »
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?  No one said that allowing competition was a "bad thing". 

As seemingly usual, you are looking to find "evil intent" to a group of companies without any proof based on a letter from Aerojet.  A letter that begs and introduces certain questions. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline moose103

  • Member
  • Posts: 89
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Aerojet wants contracts for new rocket to be competed
« Reply #53 on: 01/18/2011 05:06 pm »
What's amusing about it?

He's amused because while the law was written to exclude competition, per this news there may be competition yet.  This incongruity is one definition of humor.  But jokes aren't funny when you have to explain them.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Aerojet wants contracts for new rocket to be competed
« Reply #54 on: 01/18/2011 06:52 pm »
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.

And I can understand your bafflement.  Perhaps this bit of elaboration will clear some of that up.

In the case of SpaceX, now, in this time where there are actually private companies able to get payloads into orbit, I can certainly accept that they went into the negotiations with the attitude that you summarize.

Maybe I'm still wet behind the ears in this regard, but, back in the day, when shuttle was being designed, I guess the same attitude was prevalent, so really in some ways, not much has changed in that regard.  Silly me thought that "we the people" owned the shuttle.  That never was the case, eh?

Clearly, if I should indeed hit that Lotto, and start from scratch, I'd tie up my employees with NDA's too, especially if I were to pay for this whole thing on my own.  And I'd sell NASA or whoever, propellant on the open market, at the prices I determine.  And my hotel would charge extra for mints on the pillow. Etc.  But that's not the case.  There is no "private" market yet, in that sense.  The several investors I've spoken to are not interested in ponying up, since the gummint is the only purchaser of HLV services.

NASA should probably have another function written into its charter:  To help create a new space based economy, by developing the infrastructure for that.  Once we have a sound lunar and cis-lunar infrastructure, then NASA can go back to flagship missions, and begin developing Mars.  Unless intelligent life is suddenly discovered, there's no reason to do anything but methodically build a colonization infrastructure for a permanent human presence.  And if primitive life, or past life should be discovered, there's no reason such a methodical colonization plan could not accomodate that possible eventuality.

Look at the OP.  I'd have to say that innovation is being forbidden.  Probably Aerojet has a "better idea" for a solid motor.  The way to determine this is thru open competition.  I'm having a hard time accepting that the "innovation" here seems to be that they need to sue to even compete.  That is a travesty and a perversion of the common sense meaning of the word "innovation", in all of its senses.

Worse, is this idea that on the one hand, they're saying that RS-25 is too old and not innovative enough; we need a clean sheet design.  On the other, they're saying, no you can't have this "old" design, this is cutting edge technology, and "we" haven't made nearly enough profit on it, so "we'll" keep it proprietary, thank you, even as we send the design to the dustbin.  Or maybe revive it as a minor improvement priced at the clean sheet price point.  Plus, you might find that "we've" actually been building these things on the back lot with trained monkeys, and they really only cost $1000 apiece, mostly bananas, and you might unfairly accuse "us" of price gouging.  Besides, "we" only like competition when "we" win.  Classic stuff.

Commodities and designs are indeed the same thing if the contract sez so.  There are also licensing arrangements.  Why can't the RS-25 be licensed along the lines of the RD-180?  No reason of physics.

And it only gets worse.  The contracts themselves are propiretary.  Us taxpayers have no right to know even the terms of the termination clauses, eh?  We have to trust the faceless beauracrats, whose axes are sharper than razorblades, and who are eyeballing the revolving door with greedy anticipation.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Aerojet wants contracts for new rocket to be competed
« Reply #55 on: 01/18/2011 06:54 pm »
Why 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.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Aerojet wants contracts for new rocket to be competed
« Reply #56 on: 01/18/2011 08:13 pm »
Why 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.

Not quite sure by what you mean by "forced".  I realize that the contractors and NASA sat down voluntarily together.  I'm whining about how come it seems that nobody in NASA ever insists that the taxpayer "owns" the whole enchilada, as the negotiations start.  I'm sure there's a lot of winking and nodding about their "duty" as stewards of the program during the negotiations.  These are taxpayer dollars, after all.  [Knowing chuckle.]

I don't know why you mention PWR, and maybe Aerojet isn't interested at licensing either.  It's the principle, rather, that we don't get to have innovation based on improving an existing design.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Aerojet wants contracts for new rocket to be competed
« Reply #57 on: 01/18/2011 08:33 pm »
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.

Orbital doesn't make the solid stages themselves, but rather buys them from a subcontractor, typically ATK. In this case, it wouldn't be too ridiculous for Aerojet to partner with OSC on a bid, with Aerojet building the base rocket and OSC providing the TVC and other subsystems. But that's just speculation.

SpaceDev/Sierra Nevada are already in above their heads on Dreamchaser, and wouldn't want to compete for an entirely different project at the same time.

On Aerojet itself, it is headquartered in California, but with offices in Oregon, Arkansas, and Virgina. Anyone know which office is responsible for the Atlas SRBs?

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Aerojet wants contracts for new rocket to be competed
« Reply #58 on: 01/18/2011 08:34 pm »

*snipped*


"We the people" I guess do "own" the shuttle.  It just doesn't mean "you" (in a generic sense) have the need to know exactly how absolutely everything was built.  Believe it or not, there are ITAR restrictions still in place.

Take for example, the F-35.  "We the people" technically own that.  Try demanding from LM or the USAF how everything is built and the processes involved down to the sub-tier vendor level.  Tell them its because maybe "you could improve on it" but need to know every detail first.  Not gonna happen. 

Getting on my soapbox here a bit, it puzzles me how people want "competition" and want "innovation" yet demand that companies that design said components to give freely their designs, etc to everyone and not have a problem with that.  In reality, that stiffles "innovation" and will force a protection-ist mentality across the industry. 

Another example is just because "Part X" is contracted work does not mean the company doesn't innovate design solutions, processes, procedures, etc to meet the requirements for which they were contracted to.  These solutions could be sensitive and building on the expertise of that company, expertise that makes them competive in whatever business segment they work in (not every "widget" must come from a "major" aerospace company given a vehicle is comprised of many systems).

As for contracts, again you and others do not need to know.  The top line amount, what the contract consists of, why it was given out, etc you very much can know and have a right to know.  However, again, the details are "competition sensitive" and those type things are not released out of respect for the companies that bid because they contain labor rates, etc.  So accept it because the losing biders are not even supplied with these details. 

Now finally, you are mixing two things.  Referring to your comment about the OP (opening post), you start making claims that "innovation is being forbidden".  Aerojet may very well have a "better idea" with respect to the propulsion elements named and no one suggested otherwise. 

However, that means a brand new competition and that sets the stage for all kinds of things.  If that is the path chosen, it places everything back to square 1 and add YEARS to everything.  Not that competition is a bad thing, it's just Aerojet cannot really suggest they want to build the J-2X, RS-25, 5 segment booster, etc because they do not have the *RIGHT* to build those.  If it is made a competition, and Aerojet wins, they may be similar but they will not be the *those* engines because they were designed and developed by Aerojet with their practices and innovations driving the design. 

Yet, the "tone" of the Aerojet letter suggested they expect to compete for those very specific engines (they called 2 out of 3 of them by a very specific name).  It would be akin to PWR, or someone else, saying they intend to compete for the Aerojet OME derivative engine and Aerojet thrusters that AJ is building for Orion.  Would Aerojet have a problem with that?  If I was them, probably so. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Aerojet wants contracts for new rocket to be competed
« Reply #59 on: 01/18/2011 08:38 pm »
BTW, if anyone is really interested on how the Shuttle was built on the systems engineering level, this is a pretty amazing lecture series that I think either Jim or Blackstar (both?) pointed to in the history section a while back: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-885j-aircraft-systems-engineering-fall-2005/lecture-notes/
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1