Manufacturing always seeks cost cutting by removing quality personnel from the process. The latest fad, “faster, better, cheaper,” was just that, a fad among many perpetrated on quality by DoD.

The companies do what the DoD directs them to do. They want lower prices at the cost quality.

Whether it was DCAS, DPRO, DCMA or DCMAS, there is a push to focus on the details of the process at the expense product. Example; many are more interested in whether the paperwork had all the i’s dotted and the t’s crossed whithout understanding the actual product. That isn’t so much an indictment of the people as it is of the culture.

This leads to the focus programs and processes creating a built in resistance to change.

As I read what you are say, the failure rate of the US space industry is about the same as 60 years ago. If that is correct and I have no reason to doubt you then I perplexed as why there are any American companies still in the industry?

The purpose of a business is to make money and the defense industry is well aware of this, if saddles and canvas sails were still in demand by the US military the defense industry would be the largest manufactures of such items in the world, would they not?

Your statement suggest that a lot of dead ends and just plain cra**y product has been run through the military aero space system over the years and much of this waste and corruption has been covered with a blanket of “classified”.

I can’t disagree with any of that. Now with foreign competition setting in big time the problems are only going to get worse. I read somewhere that the DoD now uses more commercial communications and photo imaging (ie. foreign) satellite time then on its own “classified” proprietary systems. It’s cheaper and the services is more reliable.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

As to the article: Payton wonders why there are so many defects now. The answer, as Burgundy points out, is that “so many” and “now” aren’t actually the case. There always were as many defects and failures as we have now; we just didn’t hear about them because it was classified. For God’s sake, the first TWELVE Corona missions failed to deliver any images!

Payton also wonders why I&T take so long. I’ll point that finger right back at him. AEHF had a component failure during full-up system testing; LM fixed the component, and then the USAF threw away five months of thermal-vac test results and made LM do it all over again because It’s A New Configuration Now.

You said a lot, but all of it needs caveats. Government launch failures are often covered by the Government, and in the reorder, which most of the time goes to the failed contractor. For a private launch, failure is covered by insurance, satellite insurance is a big steaks/reward industry.

Yes, maintenance for the duration of a satellite expected life is part of a contract, its costs are part of the original contract. The project is the responsibility of the customer or an agent for the customer.

As for the balance sheets most of these companies are a subsidiary of a larger defense contractors and get generous R&D funds to stay in business. For a parent company it not in their best interest to show profits is such activities.

Your last statement really is questionable. The number of companies in the US that are in the big ticket satellite business is rather small and they often such as on the current NPOESS (launch Fall 2011) Weather satellite for the Government the whole industry has a piece of the action with NG as the prime contractor. As in the case of Boeing in 2004 when the revenue of it’s satellite division fell below the expectations of equity, the DoD under President Bush quickly placed a no bid order for $5 billion in AF communication satellites that the AF DIDN’T WANT.

Satellites and Satellite Launch Vehicles are an area where small emerging and developing countries can find a “Comparative Advantage” over the US and Russia.

Space is an aging industry and countries that even 20 years ago small economies could even dream of getting into the action, are now becoming big players.

The current US weather satellite is a good example it will take about five years from funding to launch, it will cost $ billions and the data from it will be controlled by the United States Government. This will cut out a lot of customers that are not friends of the current administration.

While the US weather satellite will have, at least for a few months the latest technology and advantage will quickly evaporate as the technology spreads down the food chain. As with communication satellites third party countries will start to build weather satellites and launch them and sell the data cheaper then the Us can.

In sort the US Space industry is crumbling and is getting real close to a single customer the US Government.

Like any decaying industry, it is consolidating and its quality is declining as workers age and young worker find better opportunities elsewhere. The end of course will be a GM type of take over/ bail out as an industry to vital to national interests to fail, or just downright nationalization of the space industry by The United States Government.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

You said a lot, but all of it needs caveats. Government launch failures are often covered by the Government, and in the reorder, which most of the time goes to the failed contractor. For a private launch, failure is covered by insurance, satellite insurance is a big steaks/reward industry.

Yes, maintenance for the duration of a satellite expected life is part of a contract, its costs are part of the original contract. The project is the responsibility of the customer or an agent for the customer.

As for the balance sheets most of these companies are a subsidarty of a larger defense contractors and get generous R&D funds to stay in business. For a parent company it not in their best interest to sho profits is such activities.

Your last statement really is questionable. The number of companies in the US that are in the big ticket satellite business is rather small and they often such as on the current NPOESS (launch Fall 2011) Weather satellite for the Government the whole industry has a piece of the action with NG as the prime contractor. As in the case of Boeing in 2004 when the revenue of it’s satellite division fell below the expectations of equity, the DoD under President Bush quickly placed a no bid order for $5 billion in AF communication satellites that the AF DIDN’T WANT.

Satellites and Satellite Launch Vehicles are an area where small emerging and developing countries can find a “Comparative Advantage” over the US and Russia. Space is an aging industry and countries that even 20 years ago could even dream of getting into the action are now becoming players. The current US weather satellite is a good example it will take about five years from funding to launch, it will cost $ billions and the data from it will be controlled by the United States Government. This will cut out a lot of customers that are not friends of the current administration.

While the US weather satellite will have, at least for a few months the latest technology and advantage will quickly evaporate as the technology spread down the food chain. As with communication satellites third party countries will start to build weather satellites and launch them and sell the data cheaper then the Us can.

In sort the US Space industry is crumbling and is getting real close to a single customer the US Government. Like any decaying industry, it is consolidating and its quality is declining as workers age and young worker find better opportunities elsewhere. The end of course will be a GM type of take over/ bail out as an industry to vital to national interests to fail, or just downright nationalization of the space industry by The United States Government.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

“..an’ lemme tell ya somethin’ else, sonny: ya oughta pull yer pants up an’ turn yer hat around!”

We have forgotten management 101: “What gets rewarded gets done.” In this case it’s fraud, waste and abuse. Throw in earmarks and congressional/senatorial hijinxs and you have the dysfunction we lovingly call government contracting. It isn’t a wonder these programs fail, it is a miracle anything succeeds….

Even if these contracts are executed perfectly, they drive up the cost of the overall project by adding profit margins and administrative overhead to everything from buying screws to packaging parts for shipping. Worse yet when they do not perform there are no real repercussions for most of these firms because their special status as “preferred suppliers” helped get (FILL IN DEFENSE CORP) contract XXXX.

Years ago, the A.F. due to cost, stopped much routine testing of various items on receipt from the vendors. Total dependence was placed upon inspections by the on site inspectors of the Defense Supply Agency. BIG Mistake!
Later, it was also found that the A.F. did not obtain the necessary documents and equipment to even do in depth independent oversight testing.

In reality, most of the QC “testing” effort is in insuring that all the paperwork is correct, with little time and effort expended in order to confirm that the items actually fully meet the required specificaions.

And it wouldn’t be a Byron post without a “blame the Republicans” statement and references to mysterious think tanks.

Mr. Payton is 100% correct. He has identified a problem, although it’s not ever been a secret. If he were in a civilian environment his boss would say;”… good job Payton. Your in the pay grade, solve it.”

In the more narrow sense the problem is lack of any real competition in the satellite/launch vehicle business because of consolidation and buyouts, and the out sourcing by the AF to private tanks who have “special” …oops can’t use that word, deals with in the industry to spec and design the products.

The secret that Mr. Payton hasn’t caught on to, is that in the space business the money is made in R&D and screw ups that must be redone. Once you launch and it’s successful the revenue stream is over. Only the Government can’t understand this.

The deeper problem is the decline on both the state and national and levels of post baccalauerate/graduate education. Example in the 1960’s the California State University system yearly graduated over 2,500 MS’s a year in the physical and life sciences, now they don’t even offer these degrees. If a California student wants to go beyond a BS in the sciences he/she has to go to a State University or a private institution both of which are far more expensive.

The generation of the 60’s is approaching or in fact has entered retirement age, there are few replacements to fill their vacated positions. It short, it will get worse, the false economics of the Reganization of higher education is coming back to haunt us.

Something else to think about on this topic. Someone I post to once in a while, who is well informed on the topic of satellite and launch vehicles, has noticed the accelerated learning and industrial development curves that Iran are on in developing both a satellite and a launch vehicle industry. Just this week Iran launched another communications satellite, Iran has been quietly working on being a quality producer of communications satellites, and successful launch capabilities, they are quickly becoming a player in Space.

Iran has also found an unexpected intellectual gold mine of the children of these who left the country in 1979 after the Revolution for the United States and Europe, they are asking to return. They are finding the discrimination against Muslims in the US and EU intolerable. Many of these people are in their thirties have advanced degrees in the sciences from the top educatioal institutions in the US and Europe.

Can anybody put two and two together? The US Government and it think tanks can’t.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner