Quote from: Kansan52 on 02/21/2018 04:52 pmRelook, yep, cargo not crew.Two of those have flown, one not so much...
Relook, yep, cargo not crew.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 02/21/2018 04:54 pmQuote from: Kansan52 on 02/21/2018 04:52 pmRelook, yep, cargo not crew.Two of those have flown, one not so much... Two of which?
National Space Council meeting over. In summary: China is bad. Regulation is bad. Did you see that Falcon Heavy launch! Oh, but those Chinese....That's two hours I won't get back. That was like pulling teeth.
MLD is less than honest when she used Commercial Crew as an example where COTS/public private partnership is not doing well, did she forget CCtCAP is actually under FAR, not SAA?
I thought ULA already had the launch contract for Rover 2020 ?
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 02/21/2018 04:18 pmNational Space Council meeting over. In summary: China is bad. Regulation is bad. Did you see that Falcon Heavy launch! Oh, but those Chinese....That's two hours I won't get back. That was like pulling teeth.They'll never get any 'work' done at these meetings, ever. Neither will the advisory panel get any 'work' done.Both are too high level, show-and-tell publicity events. Need each group to have a staff-level ongoing/continuous dive into the weeds, wrestling with the real issues... then have the occasional high level meeting to endorse/sign/grab all credit for actual products. Use the State Department's treaty negotiating tactics and solve the tough issues out of the spotlight, where it is much easier to seek compromise and real solutions, then let the leaders take all the bows.VP Pence tries to act like the Council is actually doing work, but ...
Quote from: su27k on 02/21/2018 05:07 pmMLD is less than honest when she used Commercial Crew as an example where COTS/public private partnership is not doing well, did she forget CCtCAP is actually under FAR, not SAA?She didn't actually say that. She said that commercial crew was more complicated (than COTS) because of astronaut safety issues.
Other Transaction Agreeements or OTAs represent a different approach, not subject to the oversight required by federal contracts. OTAs provide flexibility but also increase risk of reduced accountability and transparency. For this reason, the vast majority of them are relatively low value. Notable exceptions include Commercial Orbital Transportation System (COTS) and the Commercial Crew development program, both at NASA. During COTS, the government invested a substantial amount of the cost and left development in the hands of private enterprise. The resulting system were developed at much less cost to the government than a traditional cost plus contract would have achieved. The story is less clear with the crewed system however, where the balance between contractor descretion, government insight and the risk to human lives continue to be debated.
I thought that it was a productive meeting. It's kind of long to summarize. Regulation reform was more specific when the panelists commented on it. Essentially, there is a duplication of efforts where more than one department is in charge of the same thing. There was a recommendation to have the department of transportation in charge of a commercial launch except for the launch and landing part of a launch (which would continue being the FAA-AST, I believe). There was also a complaint that a license for one launch site doesn't work for other launch sites even if it only a few miles away. There was also some complaints about ITAR making american companies less competitive.
Her words at , 1:49:10, as much as I can make out, is thisQuote from: Mary Lynne DittmarOther Transaction Agreeements or OTAs represent a different approach, not subject to the oversight required by federal contracts. OTAs provide flexibility but also increase risk of reduced accountability and transparency. For this reason, the vast majority of them are relatively low value. Notable exceptions include Commercial Orbital Transportation System (COTS) and the Commercial Crew development program, both at NASA. During COTS, the government invested a substantial amount of the cost and left development in the hands of private enterprise. The resulting system were developed at much less cost to the government than a traditional cost plus contract would have achieved. The story is less clear with the crewed system however, where the balance between contractor descretion, government insight and the risk to human lives continue to be debated.Error: Commercial Crew is not using OTA in its current phase (CCtCAP), so using it as an example of OTA is wrong.Omission: OTA was (and is) also used by Air Force in their EELV program, which is nothing but low value.Semi-erroneous: My interpretation of her phrasing "The story is less clear" is that she thinks unlike COTS, Commercial Crew is not achieving low cost when compared to cost plus, if this interpretation is correct then this is also wrong given the huge cost difference between Orion and CC.Twisted logic: The whole reason CC is delayed is because it's under FAR and NASA is imposing changes, now this delay is being used to prove OTA doesn't always work well and we should go back to FAR. Do you see how perverse this logic is?
Quote from: yg1968 on 02/22/2018 03:44 amI thought that it was a productive meeting. It's kind of long to summarize. Regulation reform was more specific when the panelists commented on it. Essentially, there is a duplication of efforts where more than one department is in charge of the same thing. There was a recommendation to have the department of transportation in charge of a commercial launch except for the launch and landing part of a launch (which would continue being the FAA-AST, I believe). There was also a complaint that a license for one launch site doesn't work for other launch sites even if it only a few miles away. There was also some complaints about ITAR making american companies less competitive.Does it require the Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of Transportation, and a whole lot of other top level government officials to remove duplication between two departments, and reduce the number of steps for getting a launch license?Has no one heard of delegation?If it's a big issue that merits high-level and immediate action, then you create a commission, staff it with experts, and charge it with providing recommendations. Otherwise normal staff or tiger teams can handle these types of issues.I mention this because 10 top-level government leaders only getting together every couple of months is not going to be able to provide a very fast velocity of change...
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 02/22/2018 06:24 amQuote from: yg1968 on 02/22/2018 03:44 amI thought that it was a productive meeting. It's kind of long to summarize. Regulation reform was more specific when the panelists commented on it. Essentially, there is a duplication of efforts where more than one department is in charge of the same thing. There was a recommendation to have the department of transportation in charge of a commercial launch except for the launch and landing part of a launch (which would continue being the FAA-AST, I believe). There was also a complaint that a license for one launch site doesn't work for other launch sites even if it only a few miles away. There was also some complaints about ITAR making american companies less competitive.Does it require the Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of Transportation, and a whole lot of other top level government officials to remove duplication between two departments, and reduce the number of steps for getting a launch license?Has no one heard of delegation?If it's a big issue that merits high-level and immediate action, then you create a commission, staff it with experts, and charge it with providing recommendations. Otherwise normal staff or tiger teams can handle these types of issues.I mention this because 10 top-level government leaders only getting together every couple of months is not going to be able to provide a very fast velocity of change...There is also work behind the scene. In any event, usually nobody cares about space. So nothing changes because it is not a priority. Obama talked about a space once in 8 years when he was at KSC in 2010 but that was the extent of his involvement. Biden had no involvement. I prefer a more involved administration than one that lets Congress run the show.
There is also work behind the scene.
In any event, usually nobody cares about space.
So nothing changes because it is not a priority.
Obama talked about a space once in 8 years when he was at KSC in 2010 but that was the extent of his involvement.
Biden had no involvement.
I prefer a more involved administration than one that lets Congress run the show.