Article View: sci.space
Article #6866Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
From: Allen W. Sherzer
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 15:03
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 15:03
51 lines
2980 bytes
2980 bytes
In article <2JAN199317122705@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: >From all of the posts that I have seen in the last few months from you, it >seems that you live in Allen's world. I don't have much choice in that respect. I say again, one feature of Allen's world is that I need to provide my customers a real return on their investment of they won't hire me. At the same time, I need to bid projects so that all our costs are covered. Unlike NASA, I can't simply decide to loose money and expect the taxpayers to make good. >This world is where you pick and choose your own numbers and play them the >way you want to make your systems look desirable. Dennis, I know this is hard to understand but I don't pick the vehicle I like and then justify it. I pick the systems which can be justified and support them. That is why, for example, I was a shuttle supporter until about 83 when I concluded it simply wasn't working and dropped it. My devotion is to a goal, not a launcher or an organization. This is why I use the same numbers for launchers I use in my professional life. As somebody who must earn his keep I know that our systems must recoup ALL their costs one way or another. >is just your accounting that are unrealistic, as you forget to charge against >your vehicle, what you so decry me for not doing with the Shuttle. I refer you to my recent breakout of DC vs Shuttle costs. I thought I was bending over backwards to make Shuttle look good. In that posting exactly what cost did I allocate to Shuttle but not to DC? >The simple point that I was trying to make that you totally missed is that >the marginal cost as described in the November 28-December 9 issue of >space news for adding another mission is 37 million dollars maximum. Oh no, I fully understand what marginal cost means. You however seem to feel that is an excuse to ignore costs and charge what you want to for arbitrary flights. That isn't acceptable in the real world. I did agree to let you do it when you convince GM to sell you a Corvet for the marginal cost of a Corvet. let me know when you do; until then, I'll stick to assigning all costs to the project. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------110 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1993Jan4.150349.13435@iti.org>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!hela.iti.org!awsReferences:
<30DEC199220055213@judy.uh.edu> <1992Dec31.181253.6849@iti.org> <2JAN199317122705@judy.uh.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.space Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!hela.iti.org!aws From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity Message-ID: <1993Jan4.150349.13435@iti.org> Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow References: <30DEC199220055213@judy.uh.edu> <1992Dec31.181253.6849@iti.org> <2JAN199317122705@judy.uh.edu> Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:03:49 GMT Lines: 51