🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec27.205005.22184@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>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?

These costs aren't hidden. They are published and charged to a different
mission, that of R&D. NASA is a R&D operation by charter. Whether the
fruits of that R&D ever flies is a totally separate matter.

Gary

-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu