Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
When I was at the Pentagon I put out a little note about the launch of a joint USAF/NASA mission designed to test new space-qualified electronic semiconductor components under actual space conditions. A general officer, head of PR (whatever the hell that is; I knew all of the people that did actual useful work) replied, asking what it cost. I responded $350M and he was enraged. "We could fly a wing of F-15's for a year for that!"it's part of continual improvement and sustainment.
As a direct result of that shortfall, for the Atlas V and the Delta IV we had to use engines built in Russia and based on the failed NASA Space Shuttle, respectively, to keep from having to continue to use 1950's technology.
Agree - I dealt with contracting officers out of Tinker, some of them had no aviation experience and trying to get them to understand why a PT6 overhaul cost $250K was like explaining nuclear science to a puppy.When I was at the Pentagon I put out a little note about the launch of a joint USAF/NASA mission designed to test new space-qualified electronic semiconductor components under actual space conditions. A general officer, head of PR (whatever the hell that is; I knew all of the people that did actual useful work) replied, asking what it cost. I responded $350M and he was enraged. "We could fly a wing of F-15's for a year for that!"
We tried to draw an analogy between the airplane world and the space world as to making basic technological improvements but he was having none of it. NOBODY would even admit to doing anything like that! If it did not put rubber on the ramp or buy gas to fly airplanes, it was a waste, as far as he was concerned. And as a result of that attitude, the USAF/NASA attempt to make basic technological improvement in rocket engines failed, not once, but twice, and the funding both times diverted to the F-22. As a direct result of that shortfall, for the Atlas V and the Delta IV we had to use engines built in Russia and based on the failed NASA Space Shuttle, respectively, to keep from having to continue to use 1950's technology.
And THAT, dear reader is why we need a Space Force, to keep the airplane and missile troops from 'effing up something they know nothing about and have no hope of ever understanding.
But the Puppy at least had better retention of the concept...Agree - I dealt with contracting officers out of Tinker, some of them had no aviation experience and trying to get them to understand why a PT6 overhaul cost $250K was like explaining nuclear science to a puppy.
LOL - they did (do). My last hurrah was helping a former competitor bid on a contract that a former employer held. Much of the contract requirements were the same and when we submitted our proposal, the contract officers (who I worked with previously) were asking to most ignorant questions on things that were explained to them years earlier. At first we thought they were testing us but as time went on we determined that was previously explained to them was never retained. Clueless people who knew nothing about aircraft and had no interest in them but yet were responsible for awarding contracts in excess of $100 million dollars!But the Puppy at least had better retention of the concept...
I've gone into the Pentagon on a Saturday morning to try to describe nuclear rocket engine design principles to a three star fighter pilot.why a PT6 overhaul cost $250K was like explaining nuclear science to a puppy.
And Parkinson's law of triviality as well, probably. In my last corporate position, where I developed container shipping, it was easier for me to get approval for the USD 20 mln budget than for the repairs in the office lavatory (about USD 200, probably)."The Peter Principle" at work.