From: Dickey, Michael F (michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com)
Date: Mon Aug 27 2001 - 13:09:38 MDT
"Anyone have any comments on why this idea hasn't been pursued
more seriously in the U.S. or Russia? It would seem to me
the tricks here require relatively lightweight machinery
for performing the liquefication and separation."
If it makes orbital access cheaper or more effecient, then probably the
United states foolish 'Cost plus 10' program. Robert Zubring describes this
better in his book 'Entering space' Basically some politician some years
ago decided that it would be bad for evil corporations to make too much
money off the US goverment for contracts and decided to propose legislation
that contracts had to be paid on a 'Cost plus 10' program. In other words,
whatever the project cost, plus 10 percent, is what they would make. No
bidding, no competiting, no nothing. Of course, this meant that programs
now not only didnt have the incentive to make better cheaper products, they
actually had the incentive to use older, more expensive more innefiecient
products. The construction process now had to be closely examined as well,
to make sure those nasty corporations werent cheating the government, of
course this meant a line by line itemized expenditure, which meant more
people, which meant higher costs...This is why we still use rockets from 30
years ago.
Sorry, I am done with my rant...
Michael
LEGAL NOTICE
Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:09 MST