Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

smurf975 · 2004-06-20 06:37:58

I like the idea of NASA working as just the order giver. Congress and Whitehouse will state the missions and goals of NASA and give it a budget, which it can't exceed. To make sure that NASA is not given new orders at every new elected government, it must pass through the senate (they are for long term things right?).

The idea is have it working in five stages.

Stage One: Bid on the projects by anyone
NASA will take the missions and goals set by the government and allow any party (even a professor) to bid on them. However to bid you will have to pay $20.000 (just to make sure that not any nutcase can bid) and each submitted bid must be fully worked out and follow certain rules. NASA is obliged to study and comment on any bid that is made. If a bid is rejected it must explain why and the bidder can counter this via by forwarding his bid to an independent council, who will then judge it.

Stage Two: Working it out
Each bid receives back comments or a rejection from NASA. Those that receive comments back are basically possible to NASA with some modifications or none.

The bidder can post a new bid with the modifications if asked and do a bid again at a cost of $20.000. Which will be studied again and commented, however now each new modification will not cost you money to bid in this stage, only to enter it, if accepted.

As at this stage it’s just about the bids and not working prototypes so the cost to submit a bid shouldn’t really hurt the serious bidders.

Stage Three: The details
A small number of final bids will only enter this stage. Lets say five of them. They are all given a budget of $8.000.000 more or less. This is to get all the details straight. I mean every little detail from what socks to wear to things that can go wrong.

Stage Four: Prototypes and computer models
In this stage the bidders need to proof their concepts with prototypes and computer models. They will get funding and help for this, however limited.

Stage Five: The decision
In this stage the final bidder is decided, the ones that were able to proof the computer models and prototypes and stay within budget and then the best of them is given orders to organize or build the mission/goal.

This plan is basically worked out so that you don’t get a plan from NASA as in the Bush I administration that stated the cost of a human mission to Mars in trillions without asking other opinions. Or so that only big companies as Boeing and Lockheed will get the project for their possibly inefficient plans. So any guy that’s able to do workable computer models and prototypes (no bigger then a car) and with a detailed plan is able to get the order.

C M Edwards · 2004-06-21 14:03:44

Gosh, Smurf975, that's some pretty lax rules for evaluating proposals. ??? It's harder to get a plan past the average city council. Still, the goals are desirable enough.

I definitely agree that space programs shouldn't be as susceptible to meddling at every budget cycle.

smurf975 · 2004-06-21 14:27:20

Gosh, Smurf975, that's some pretty lax rules for evaluating proposals. ??? It's harder to get a plan past the average city council. Still, the goals are desirable enough.
I definitely agree that space programs shouldn't be as susceptible to meddling at every budget cycle.

Well I was not saying to submit a plan like: Build a space elevator using nanocarbon thingies and let NASA figure it out.

No you will have to describe plan in detail. Such as the physics behind it, the forces you may encounter, how will you produce those carbon thingies and so on.

And as I gather fancy computers if given enough data are able to tell if this will work or not. However NASA engineers can also see if plan will work or not and there knowledge will be used to skim through the: would work, possible and crazy plans. Computer models and prototypes will then say which "would work" plan is the best.

I don't see what can go wrong with this?!

As I gather it were individuals that actually build the first rockets and planes (as we know them) with or without state funding. Big corps just took those ideas and are stretching those earlier ideas to what is now.

C M Edwards · 2004-06-21 15:52:30

Well I was not saying to submit a plan like: Build a space elevator using nanocarbon thingies and let NASA figure it out.

My favorites are the elaborately designed starships with the big empty boxes labelled: "Insert Stardrive Here."

As I gather it were individuals that actually build the first rockets and planes (as we know them) with or without state funding. Big corps just took those ideas and are stretching those earlier ideas to what is now.

Indeed, there are all sorts of approaches to the problem of organizing research into space travel. However, one entity would do best to focus on just a few approaches at a time. This would make evaluating proposals easier still.

For example, do you want NASA to be a foundation, research laboratory, public works, for-profit company, regulatory agency, manufacturer, publishing house, advertising agency, university, military base, retailer, amusement park, launch provider, environmental consultant, and anything else that it will ever take to please the constituents of every single member of Congress? Or, would you prefer that NASA just pick a job and go with it?

The individuals building the first privately financed orbital vehicles won't be if they go the route that NASA has chosen.
NASA won't continue to be if it has to keep chasing money and approval the way it does.

Unfortunately, the people meddling the most with NASA and introducing the most ungainly projects are often the very people controlling the purse strings. Tightening up the requirements for each proposal would mean choking off money for a lot of them. NASA is highly unlikely to do that.

smurf975 · 2004-06-21 16:43:53

Indeed, there are all sorts of approaches to the problem of organizing research into space travel. However, one entity would do best to focus on just a few approaches at a time. This would make evaluating proposals easier still.

Nothing wrong with setting your priorities.

For example, do you want NASA to be a foundation, research laboratory, public works, for-profit company, regulatory agency, manufacturer, publishing house, advertising agency, university, military base, retailer, amusement park, launch provider, environmental consultant, and anything else that it will ever take to please the constituents of every single member of Congress? Or, would you prefer that NASA just pick a job and go with it?

If NASA is doing all of these tasks now it should be split up. Like JPL each department would be a government-funded company. Personally I could imagine NASA as a foundation, which also sponsors certain university departments (to get the future engineers).

But overall as also money is limited, the goals should either:

1. Explore (Hubble, Mars Rovers -> Science)
2. Conquer (Colonize -> Economy and expansion)
3. Destroy (Space branch of military -> Power).

Now it’s a its more like Explore and Destroy. The New World on Earth was based on “Conquer” and its success fueled science and military power.

The individuals building the first privately financed orbital vehicles won't be if they go the route that NASA has chosen.
NASA won't continue to be if it has to keep chasing money and approval the way it does.

It’s just that the first simple rockets, planes, personal computers and Coca Cola, were brewed, made in someone’s garage.

It took an industry to make them profitable, build on a larger scale and perfect the technology but they had the same origins. And it’s not a multinational.

I just want to give this "garage" builder a chance to submit his/her plan. If its sound then get some investors to back it up and submit it to NASA. For instance the Mars Direct Plan.

Unfortunately, the people meddling the most with NASA and introducing the most ungainly projects are often the very people controlling the purse strings. Tightening up the requirements for each proposal would mean choking off money for a lot of them. NASA is highly unlikely to do that.

I agree, a reason for this is also that a lot of jobs depend on those projects even if they fail. If the shuttle gets disbanded then thousands of jobs will be lost and not everyone is happy with that.

But NASA should also be able to say: “Hey you are sending us on a wild goose chase!” NASA should know better then the government what’s good and what’s not and state so in public. If they don’t, they seem more interested in keeping as much as possible the same people employed and in general keeping the status quo and keeping a low profile in Washington.

If generals during Gulf War Two were able to criticize the Pentagon and the Whitehouse so should NASA directors be able to and wanting too.

smurf975 · 2004-06-21 17:14:43

As a followup here is information on DARPA (The ones that created the internet):

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
is the central research and development organization for the Department of Defense (DoD). It manages and directs selected basic and applied research and development projects for DoD, and pursues research and technology where risk and payoff are both very high and where success may provide dramatic advances for traditional military roles and missions.

Take this mission statement and put it in NASA's perspective and pick one of these space orientated goals:

1. Scientific advantages
2. Social and Economic advantages
3. Military advantages

I think its that simple. DARPA has done a lot and is doing a lot http://www.darpa.mil/body/strategic_pla … ext.htm]as you can read from its strategic plan. And its still just a foundation. However if you don't care to read the whole strategic plan (I didn't) then just skim through http://www.darpa.mil/body/overtheyears.html]this.

SpaceNut · 2017-06-12 18:02:58

Finished fixing another shifting and artifacts filled topic....

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-06-20 06:37:58

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#27 2004-06-21 14:03:44

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#28 2004-06-21 14:27:20

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#29 2004-06-21 15:52:30

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#30 2004-06-21 16:43:53

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#31 2004-06-21 17:14:43

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#32 2017-06-12 18:02:58

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

Board footer