There’s a blog posting on the Time website that discusses military weapons procurement, and why everything is so damned expensive:
Building Weapons: Where 70% Trumps 100%
The author, Lt. Col Dan Ward, makes some really good points, which basically boil down to: we keep shooting for a 100% weapon system, which causes costs to skyrocket and often as not ends up as a 0% weapon system. On the other hand, a 70% weapon system (i.e. a weapon designed to fulfill 70% of the hoped-for goals) generally comes in at about 65% and approximately on-budget. The 100% weapon, like the F-22 or F-35, turns into a gold-plated hangar queen.
While reading that, it dawned on me that you could replace “weapon system” with “launch system” just as well. Rather than neato-keen launch vehicles that fulfill every desire – all the newest technologies, all the important Congressional districts, all the payloads), instead go for a less-impressive but much more practical “70%” launcher.
Read the article. It’s good.
UPDATE: Dan Ward, the author of the piece, sent me an email that addresses some of the issues raised in the comments. Part of the message:
I agree completely with the comment about the need for specific examples. I know it’s a cop out, but I didn’t have enough space in the post to give a specific program anything more than a superficial reference (yeah, I probably should have done at least that). Anyway, I plan to do a follow-on piece that WILL look at examples, but in the meantime you might like an article from last summer called FIST At Five which talks about specific programs and also specific tools & techniques: www.dau.mil/pubscats/ATL%20Docs/May-June11/Ward.pdf. That one applies to space pretty well too.
