NASA, FAA deliberately overregulating and not caring about the waste of our money.

[archangel689]

Not only are they taxing us and giving the money to whatever billionaire's space company they choose, they are also using that money simultaneously to try to regulate and control those space companies into failure because they are hell bent on "government does it better" and the interests of lobbyists!



Will SpaceX Dump NASA?

If NASA doesn’t change the terms in the draft version of its contract to build a spacecraft that can deliver astronauts to orbit, then Space Exploration Corp. (SpaceX) may simply bow out of building one for NASA. "We may not bid on it," SpaceX founder Elon Musk said. However he is increasingly optimistic that the agency will change some of the rules that dictate the design.

Musk was in Washington, D.C., today, along with other leaders of private space companies, testifying before the House Committee on Science and Technology about the state of the partnership between NASA and private space companies. Musk made his comments to PM outside the hearing room, but the backstory of his frustration is the first draft of a contract called the CCIDC (Commercial Crew Integrated Design Contract), which NASA issued last month to guide the way that private companies build crew-carrying spacecraft. As Popular Mechanics reported last week, this early version of the contract allows NASA to exert more control over the hardware design than many in the industry are comfortable with. It installs NASA staff into the companies’ facilities and leaves open the question of how many changes the agency can force companies to make.

That is a big deal, considering the contract is fixed-price. That means the company does not get more money if the design changes—other contracts, called cost-plus, compensate for these increases.

"Some of the contract seemed cut-and-pasted from Constellation," Musk says, referring to the contracts behind the program that was to carry astronauts into orbit before the Obama administration canceled it. "It’s important that if the price is fixed, the terms must also be fixed."

Other space industry leaders at the hearing brought up similar concerns over the scope of NASA’s control during testimony—but did not signal they would drop out of the competition. (Secretive space company Blue Origin didn’t show up for the hearing, however.) ATK’s Charlie Precourt, vice president of the company’s space-launch systems, says it’s still unclear how NASA will judge the space hardware. "NASA has not yet announced its final requirements for the commercial-crew certification process," he says. "The degree of testing and verification required to achieve certification is still under development at the agency. This could ultimately affect a schedule delay, causing a larger gap in America’s access to space and jeopardizing the success of the program."

The witnesses also expressed discomfort with the lack of detail on how much NASA’s demands on the design would drive the cost of development. "NASA should provide oversight and direction in all cases where they see a need to improve safety of a spacecraft being developed for their use," Sierra Nevada’s flight director Steven Lindsey said. "However, that does not mean that every technical change suggested by the government should be accepted. If a change makes the design ‘better’ but doesn’t impact safety, then the commercial company must have the leeway to accept or reject the change based on technical, cost, or schedule considerations."

What is clear, the companies say, is that the timeline in NASA’s contract is too slow—all the players told Congress they could launch by 2015, while the NASA contract states a 2017 flight date. With adequate funding they can be ready to go in 2015, they all agreed. "Six years seems like infinity," Musk said.

Read more: Will SpaceX Dump NASA? - Elon Musk Testimony - Popular Mechanics

Some Comments:


"Dave Huntsman
Mark, you're wrong. I've been in NASA 37 years - 9 years as an SES - and my agency certainly IS part of the problem. The lobbying of certain companies, plus the MSFC et al congressional delegation, is the reason we have SLS; it is not based on need, or market assessment, or, actually, anything.

The Commercial Crew program is being undermined as we speak due to internal NASA opposition by people absolutely opposed to the mere concept itself; I've been in the room when they've pounded their fists and said so. As a result, the way Commercial Crew is being implemented, maximizing NASA control over the design of companies' own hardware and operation, maximizing requirements and bureaucratic and legal costs, etc. - all things avoided on COTS/CRS - is a 100% give-in to the 'anti-'s".
...."

"The thing I shudder at, though, is if the commercial sector thumbs its nose at government funding does the FAA suddenly assert its regulatory authority and basically kill the industry with requirements. As with most delegated powers authorizations these days, the words Congress passed to empower FAA AST to do its job allow FAA AST really to decide what that job is."

 

[flightlesskiwi]

along those same lines, people DO realize that one of the purposes of the FAA is to work on completely shutting down private, non-commerical airplane ownership and operation, right?