NASA May Outsource 219
The Wall Street Journal is running a piece about the growing momentum behind the idea of NASA outsourcing to private companies everything from transporting astronauts to ferrying cargo into orbit. Quoting: "Proposals gaining momentum in Washington call for contractors to build and run competing systems under commercial contracts, according to federal officials, aerospace-industry officials and others familiar with the discussions. While the Obama administration is still mulling options and hasn't made any final decisions, such a move would represent a major policy shift away from decades of government-run rocket and astronaut-transportation programs such as the current space-shuttle fleet. ... In the face of severe federal budget constraints and a burgeoning commercial-space industry eager to play a larger role in exploring the solar system and perhaps beyond, ...a consensus for the new approach seems to be building inside the White House as well as [NASA]. ... Under this scenario, a new breed of contractors would take over many of NASA's current responsibilities, freeing the agency to pursue longer-term, more ambitious goals such as new rocket-propulsion technology and manned missions to Mars. ...[T]hese contractors would take the lead in servicing the International Space Station from the shuttle's planned retirement around 2011 through at least the end of that decade."
Maybe it's about time (Score:3, Interesting)
SpaceX is moving forward, without asking the government for money. http://www.spacex.com/ [spacex.com]
and if these companies made profit? (Score:5, Interesting)
Would it still save money if the companies rose prices to make a profit?
With NASA, its science oriented. With business, its profit oriented.
I think the current status quo is best, only outsource if something better already exists.
Good, BUT (Score:5, Interesting)
Go NASA go. Once the infrastructure is in place for LEO/GEO/Lunar, then it should be possible to focus on NASA's true purpose; pushing the tech and science of space.
Re:How is this different than now? (Score:3, Interesting)
It is different because instead of paying around $100 an hour for a GS-14, the govt will be paying $150-$250 an hour for the same individuals, via a giant contractor ( Northrop, Boeing, Lockheed ).
Uh, no. They'd be paying for someone to launch their cargo into orbit, rather than employing people directly to do so... there's a huge difference between buying launch services like any other customer and hiring thousands of contractors to launch your own rocket on a cost-plus contract.
Anyone can buy a Delta launch and the rates are well known; if Boeing start trying to charge NASA ten times as much as they charge any other customer, even the US government might realise they're being screwed.
I hope that you are kidding (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How is this different than now? (Score:3, Interesting)
The last sentence of your post demonstrated a misconception.
When the govt turns to contractors and issues an RFP, the govt rarely does a complete halt and tries to go in-house when contractors pitch inflated costs. Instead, the govt might try to scale back the services during the negotiation phase of the acquisition, and pay more, for less service.
Re:How is this different than now? (Score:3, Interesting)
If the government can't figure out when they're being screwed, then that's a problem with government, not with business; if the government is willing to pay ten times as much as any other customer, why would any sane business not charge that?
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ugggh (Score:3, Interesting)
If there's one thing worse than the government doing something, it's the government giving someone a de-facto monopoly to do it in the form of a government contract.
You're missing the point. The whole reason they're doing this is so they have multiple competing vendors for services, instead of just a single monopolistic contractor.
Re:Is really a bad, bad idea... (Score:3, Interesting)
My favorite example of privatization gone horribly, horribly wrong is the UK Post Office.
After a year or two of operating under private ownership, the new owners decided there was no way that the Post Office could possibly operate profitably in rural markets, sold off all of its assets in these areas, closed up shop, and pocketed the money from the sales.
Re:How is this different than now? (Score:2, Interesting)
You are not wrong, sir. Part of the problem with space is that while American has the tech (though others are quickly catching up) they also have the bureaucracy. And not the good kind that gets things organized- the bad kind that requires an 18 year delay to permit the sales of Coke in India. (THAT kind.)
I'm just so happy that the settlers didn't decided it was too big to get across the USA back in the 1800s- that a government agency was needed. If it were, we'd be up to about Ohio, just about now.
It's time to do with NASA, what needs to be done with ALL federal power: snip it to a standards-authority. Take all that mindless, money-burning power of a congressman and divert it to only a job for setting standards, not impeding progress.
Obama just happens to be the president presiding; the congress is where the real issues are, and like *every* directly-controlled agency of the Congress, NASA suffers from bloat and waste to insane quantities.
Can anyone name a single, federally-run activity that *isn't* a dismal failure?
Re:Blah... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, but of those brands, which one are you driving? (hint: you most likely aren't) :-)
Re:Is really a bad, bad idea... (Score:2, Interesting)