It was, but to be fair, nobody knew how to do the kinds of things they
were doing in Apollo. NA took the fall for the fire, which was really
NASA's fault. There was a mythology in Downey (which may have been true)
that the Shuttle award was a reward for that (though it didn't hurt that
it provided jobs in Nixon's home state, as opposed to Long Island).
On 11/4/21 15:15, Anthony Cesaroni wrote:
Historical notes suggest that it was a pretty rough ride for North American
during Apollo development for many reasons. This despite their previous
experience with complex systems. It wasn’t exactly a cake walk for the other
contractors either as I recall.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x1004 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
-----Original Message-----
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
Rand Simberg
Sent: Thursday, November 4, 2021 4:48 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: FW: [NASA HQ News] NASA Statement on Artemis Lunar Lander
Court Decision
Yes, I made that point in my book. Companies don't have experience; people do.
SpaceX is currently the premier rocket-design team on the planet, which is why
they've been able to make such seemingly rapid progress on SS/SH.
On 11/4/21 13:29, Henry Spencer wrote:
I wrote:
Beware "qualified supplier" syndrome. The only way to maintainP.S. Boeing will happily tell you that almost all previous US manned
actual competition is to sometimes give the job to an enthusiastic
newcomer, because that's the only way you get *new* experienced
suppliers, to replace old ones lost in mergers etc.
spacecraft were built by companies now part of Boeing. But there is
nothing left of McDonnell (Mercury, Gemini) in today's Boeing, and not
much left of North American (Apollo CSM) or Rockwell (Shuttle
orbiter). Technical competence isn't hereditary.
Henry