home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.space
- Path: sparky!uunet!hela.iti.org!aws
- From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
- Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?
- Message-ID: <1992Dec27.205005.22184@iti.org>
- Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
- References: <9gt204c@rpi.edu> <1992Dec23.132824.14131@iti.org> <1992Dec25.014627.4982@ke4zv.uucp>
- Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 20:50:05 GMT
- Lines: 27
-
- In article <1992Dec25.014627.4982@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
-
- >In military procurement, the development costs are charged against
- >the prototypes, X, Y, etc, and the operational vehicles of the procurement
- >are charged at "flyaway" cost.
-
- Which I suspect is done largely to hide the true cost. I point out that if
- the contractors in question ran their accounts this way they would all be
- in jail and out of buisness.
-
- >Following this model, Enterprise ate the
- >development costs, and it's retired. Current Orbiters are only liable for
- >their $1.5 billion flyaway cost and their operational costs.
-
- But why should we follow that model? Hiding costs like you advocate only
- encourages waste and inefficiency. How can we possibly make access to space
- cheap if we make it impossible to identify those costs and reduce them?
-
- That approach simply has not and will not get us anywhere.
-
- Allen
-
- --
- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
- | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves |
- | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" |
- +----------------------118 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
-