141–150 of 158 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aggressive scheduling is a tactic. Because no matter what the schedule, human nature dictates that things are likely to slip.
Spin it all you want but a failure to meet schedules isn't really acceptable. You either failed to deliver or failed to manage your project estimation process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rockets have the structural integrity of a pop can.
And yet pop cans travel halfway around the world daily... I don't see the issue. As I said, it could be expensive, but there's no risk or danger in it. People transport extremely fragile things by sea all the time. You may have to be mindful of weather, but it is do-able with the will and money.
REALLY?!?!
Your pop can is not filled up with tons of explosive materials and didn't cost millions of dollars.
The worse thing that can happen if your pop can is damaged is you get a flat soda or a leaky can.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless you spent the money in getting your candidates into senate etc.
The Senate doesn't vote for the military's acquisition process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, this is what the field of accounting theory is all about: how do you best represent the finances of a company? The best way to do so depends heavily on the type of company you're talking about and who wants to know the information, but many companies choose to keep multiple sets of books--one that follows the IRS's rules (this one is required), one that follows the SEC's rules (required if they are a publicly t…
> In any one month... Pretty much everything you mention in this paragraph is covered by accounting rules a student would learn in year 1. Cash flow isn't profitability. Spending on assets is capitalized, and they depreciate according to rules, not what you "may want" to do. Yes, there is always some leeway to play fast and loose with accounting, and companies are always trying "adjust" earnings to suit to their busi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Senate doesn't vote for the military's acquisition process.
The Congress, including the Senate, absolutely does vote on the laws that set the parameters with which the military's acquisition process (among other military policies and processes) must conform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well the reason for that is because they're given exclusive access to basically launch a missile from US airspace. With a mere change of payload, that rocket can be used to deliver a nuclear warhead. So yeah, it's pretty prudent to have background checks, massive amounts of oversight, and many kill switches. An even if you have all the best intentions, it doesn't take that much to accidentally crash into the ISS and…
To be fair, it's pretty improbable to accidentally hit the ISS. It takes really precise maneuvers and calculations to get there on purpose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you schedule a rocket launch when someone else owns the 50-year-old range radar equipment that keeps executing HCF?
> How do you schedule a rocket launch when someone else owns the 50-year-old range radar equipment that keeps executing HCF? Recognize that even if you don't own the radar equipment, it is impacting your ability to deliver value, so spend the necessary funds to get them to replace the radar equipment with something that doesn't have that problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The context here is NASA moving slowly and the possibility of SpaceX launching without their involvement. Can you think of a single customer for that? Try to get Russian permission to got to the Russian side of the station without NASA involvement or just hang out in the Dragon until you get tired of using diapers?
Such as visiting a Bigelow Aerospace inflatable space station? They have a demo in orbit, an ISS module in the pipeline, and a manifested launch of a bigger unit on the SpaceX manifest. I thought this was pretty well known, guess I was wrong!